The information provided by bard represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bard.The following were reviewed as part of this investigation: patient severity, frequency analysis, applicable previous investigation(s), sample (if available), applicable fmea documents, labeling, and applicable manufacture records.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of ballooning during infusion could be confirmed based on the evidence found on the returned sample.The cause was determined to be related to use of the device.The external segment of a broviac 4.2 fr repair catheter was returned for investigation.The tubing extended 7mm from the distal end of the clamping oversleeve.The printing on the clamping sleeve was completely worn near the crimp collar, which is indicative of clamping near the crimp collar.A breach in the circumferential direction was located within the inner layer of tubing that coincided with the distal tip of the luer adaptor stem.It appears that the inner layer of tubing wore against the luer adaptor stem.Clamping the catheter near the crimp collar or repeatedly flexing or kinking the catheter in the area can stress the catheter as it is stretched over the luer adaptor barb, eventually leading to catheter failure.The catheter should never be clamped over the reinforced segment directly adjacent to the connector.The breach would have allowed fluid to fill the space between the clamping sleeve and the inner tubing and lead to ballooning of the clamping sleeve; however, a hole was found in the tubing that also coincided with the distal tip of the luer adaptor stem.After wearing through the inner tubing, the stem also wore through the clamping sleeve, which appears to have been caused by clamping near the crimp collar.No damage or defects related to the manufacturing process were noted on the returned sample.The damage appears to be associated with use of the device.A lot history review (lhr) review is not possible; the manufacturing lot number that was provided is incorrect.
|