On (b)(6) 2023, (b)(6) (avi clinical field director) and (b)(6)(avi national sales manager) were at (b)(6), a site participating in the picc-251 (dual lumen) limited market release (lmr).During this visit, a radiologist mentioned that one of the patients had a dvt and went on to state that "it was a difficult placement".For this patient, the vascular access team at riverside had attempted "multiple" times to insert a non-avi picc line catheter without success.The patient was then referred to the ir team to insert an avi picc-251 catheter; it took the ir team "multiple" tries as well but they were able to successfully insert the picc-251 line on (b)(6).Through (b)(6) discussion with the team at riverside, the general consensus was that the dvt was not caused by the product, but rather a vein that was "well used" or "over-manipulated." avi reviewed the picc-251 lmr insertion questionnaire that was completed for the device.In summary: - the clinician (jeffrey mendell) had prior experience with avi catheter kits (>5 insertions).- the patient had a co-morbidity: diabetes.- the catheter was inserted in the left basilic vein, however, the patient was identified as having strictures (v-18 wire could not be withdrawn; v-14 was used to pass a stricture).The clinician rated the "ease of advancement of the catheter" a 3/5 (average).- the clinician determined the device to be clinically acceptable.The device was discarded after removal, therefore not available for evaluation by avi.No patient outcome was noted.The lot number provided, #11423187, is assigned by argon medical (avi's approved supplier for kitting).This kit contained catheters from avi catheter lot #08182206.The lhr for these catheters was reviewed and there were no deviations or nonconformances found that could contribute to the complaint issue.The instructions for use (ls-068 rev c) for picc-251 includes a contraindication for "anatomical irregularities (structural or vascular) which may compromise catheter insertion or catheter care procedures." consensus from the team at (b)(6) was that the dvt was not caused by the product, but rather a vein with a known blockage that was identified prior to placement of the line.No further action is required.
|