Ortho performed retain testing, batch review, complaint review by lot, donor history, and donor complaint review.Based upon the results of this investigation, the reported customer issue was unable to be confirmed.All results were satisfactory.Sample was not returned to ortho for further investigation.(b)(4).
|
Customer contacted tsc to report single patient failed to react with cell#3 and cell#6 of (b)(4)% resolve panel a lot# vra299 and customer could not identify anti-e from panel.Tsc requested but customer did not provide lot# of mts igg gel cards.Customer initially tested antibody screen on patient sample on provue analyzer with (b)(4)% surgiscreen cell#2 reacted 2+.Customer reports qc on 0.8% resolve panel a in question passed when tested with anti-c.Issue started on: (b)(6) 2018.Frequency: 1x.Microtubes/wells or cell (donor #) affected:cell#3 and #6.Methodology used: manual gel.Incubation time (for manual test only):15 min.Reaction grade obtained: neg.Customer was expecting: pos.Test repeated: no.Customer reports storing and testing mts gel cards and reagents according to ifu.Customer tested patient with (b)(4)% resolve panel c.Customer reports untreated panel c vial# 3 reacted with 3+ pos reaction, all other cells in untreated panel negative.Customer reports (b)(4)% resolve panel c treated , cell#3 and cell#6 both reacted with 3+ pos reaction.Customer reports if (b)(4)% resolve panel c was not performed, anti -e that was identified could have been missed.Detail any maintenance failure or maintenance inadequately performed that would be relevant for the issue : up to date.Tsc asked customer if repeat testing done, customer reports no.Tsc asked customer to phenotype cell #3 and #6 from (b)(4)% resolve panel a in question: customer refused.Customer demands replacement and is frustrated with product.Tsc discussed with customer if cells were properly mixed in (b)(4)% resolve panel a , customer reports yes.Tsc will replace one (b)(4)% resolve panel a from alternate lot #, customer agreed.
|