Skip to content

Impress® 00884450038161Recalls & reported problems

Merit Medical Systems, Inc. · Class 2

All models of Impress (145)

Data updated Oct 18, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy

Adverse event reports
6
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
6
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 6 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 00884450038161), received between Jun 1, 2022 and Jan 24, 2024 — classified as 6 injuries.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Fracture” (6 reports).

Reports come from manufacturers, hospitals and patients and are not verified by the FDA. A report does not prove the device caused the event, and counts can't be used to compare devices or estimate failure rates. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works · Data updated Oct 18, 2026.

Reports received per month

Nov 2023: 0 reportsDec 2023: 0 reportsJan 2024: 1 reportsFeb 2024: 0 reportsMar 2024: 0 reportsApr 2024: 0 reportsMay 2024: 0 reportsJun 2024: 0 reportsJul 2024: 0 reportsAug 2024: 0 reportsSep 2024: 0 reportsOct 2024: 0 reportsNov 2024: 0 reportsDec 2024: 0 reportsJan 2025: 0 reportsFeb 2025: 0 reportsMar 2025: 0 reportsApr 2025: 0 reportsMay 2025: 0 reportsJun 2025: 0 reportsJul 2025: 0 reportsAug 2025: 0 reportsSep 2025: 0 reportsOct 2025: 0 reportsNov 2025: 0 reportsDec 2025: 0 reportsJan 2026: 0 reportsFeb 2026: 0 reportsMar 2026: 0 reportsApr 2026: 0 reportsMay 2026: 0 reportsJun 2026: 0 reportsJul 2026: 0 reportsAug 2026: 0 reportsSep 2026: 0 reportsOct 2026: 0 reports2024202520261
Last 36 months. The most recent month may be incomplete.

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Fracture6
  • Material Separation6

Patient problems

  • No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions5
  • Foreign Body Embolism1
  • Foreign Body In Patient1
  • Ischemia1
  • Obstruction/Occlusion1

Recent adverse event reports

The 6 most recent of 6 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • InjuryJan 24, 2024Fracture; Material Separation; Fracture; Material Separation

    THE ACCOUNT ALLEGES THAT DURING A PROCEDURE THE DISTAL END OF THE CATHETER BROKE OFF INSIDE THE PATIENT. THE PHYSICIAN SUCCESSFULLY EXTERNALIZED THE FOREIGN BODY WITH A VASCULAR SNARE DEVICE LIBERATING THE VESSEL. NO ADDITIONAL PATIENT CONSEQUENSES TO REPORT.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 18571586 ↗
  • InjuryJun 14, 2023Fracture; Material Separation; Fracture; Material Separation

    THE ACCOUNT ALLEGES THAT DURING A CAROTID STENT DEPLOYMENT PROCEDURE, THE CATHETER TIP DETACHED WITHIN THE PATIENT. THE PHYSICIAN HAD ACQUIRED RETROGRADE ARTERIAL ACCESS AND HAD NEGOTIATED THE PATIENT'S VASCULATURE SYSTEM WITH A GUIDEWIRE AND THE 5F CATHETER. DURING CATHETER MANIPULATIONS UNDER FLUOROSCOPY THE CATHETER TIP DETACHED AND STARTED TO MIGRATE TOWARDS THE SUBCLAVIAN AND HUMERAL ARTERIES. THE PHYSICIAN SUCCESSFULLY EXTERNALIZED THE FOREIGN BODIES LIBERATING THE NATIVE VESSELS. THE PATIENT TOLERATED THE PROCEDURE WELL WITH NO ADDITIONAL CONSEQUENCES TO REPORT.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 17131159 ↗
  • InjuryJun 14, 2023Fracture; Material Separation; Fracture; Material Separation

    THE ACCOUNT ALLEGES THAT DURING A CAROTID STENT DEPLOYMENT PROCEDURE, THE CATHETER TIP DETACHED WITHIN THE PATIENT. THE PHYSICIAN HAD ACQUIRED RETROGRADE ARTERIAL ACCESS AND HAD NEGOTIATED THE PATIENT'S VASCULATURE SYSTEM WITH A GUIDEWIRE AND THE 5F CATHETER. DURING CATHETER MANIPULATIONS UNDER FLUOROSCOPY THE CATHETER TIP DETACHED AND STARTED TO MIGRATE TOWARDS THE SUBCLAVIAN AND HUMERAL ARTERIES. THE PHYSICIAN SUCCESSFULLY EXTERNALIZED THE FOREIGN BODIES LIBERATING THE NATIVE VESSELS. THE PATIENT TOLERATED THE PROCEDURE WELL WITH NO ADDITIONAL CONSEQUENCES TO REPORT.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 17131153 ↗
  • InjuryJan 10, 2023Fracture; Material Separation; Fracture; Material Separation

    THE ACCOUNT ALLEGES THAT DURING A PROCEDURE, THE IMPRESS CATHETER BROKE INTO TWO PIECES WITHIN THE PATIENT ANATOMY. THE DETACHED PIECES WERE SUCCESSFULLY RETRIEVED USING A SNARE. NO ADDITIONAL PATIENT CONSEQUENCE TO REPORT.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 16134810 ↗
  • InjuryJan 3, 2023Fracture; Material Separation; Fracture; Material Separation

    THE ACCOUNT ALLEGES THAT DURING A PROCEDURE, THE IMPRESS CATHETER BROKE INTO TWO PIECES WITHIN THE PATIENT ANATOMY. THE DETACHED PIECES WERE SUCCESSFULLY RETRIEVED USING A SNARE. NO ADDITIONAL PATIENT CONSEQUENCE TO REPORT.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 16092045 ↗
  • InjuryJun 1, 2022Fracture; Material Separation; Fracture; Material Separation

    THE ACCOUNT ALLEGES THAT DURING A DIAGNOSTIC ENDOVASCULAR PROCEDURE, THE CATHETER HAD DETACHED TWICE WITHIN THE PATIENT. THE PHYSICIAN HAD ACQUIRED VASCULAR ACCESS AND DURING CATHETER MANIPULATIONS OVER A GUIDEWIRE, UNDER FLUOROSCOPY, THE CATHETER DETACHED. THE PHYSICIAN WAS ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY EXTERNALIZE ONLY ONE FOREIGN BODY FROM THE PATIENT WITH A VASCULAR SNARE DEVICE. THE OTHER FOREIGN BODY THAT DETACHED BECAME STUCK WITHIN THE PATIENT'S LEG. NO ADDITIONAL PATIENT CONSEQUENCES TO REPORT.

    Patient problems: Foreign Body Embolism; Foreign Body In Patient; Ischemia; Obstruction/Occlusion

    MAUDE report 14570743 ↗

Other CATHETER, INTRAVASCULAR, DIAGNOSTIC devices

All CATHETER, INTRAVASCULAR, DIAGNOSTIC devices →

Sources and updates

How reports and recalls are matched · Editorial policy · Report an error on this page