(b)(4).The customer returned one arterial catheterization device for evaluation.Two (2) arterial catheters were returned.One of them did not show any evidence of use, therefore it is being assumed that this catheter is representative.The remaining returned components showed evidence of use.Visual analysis revealed that the catheter body was severed towards the catheter hub.Microscopic examination confirmed the damage and revealed that the point of separation was angled and showed no evidence of stretching, which is damage consistent with contact with sharps (i.E.Needle bevel).The catheter body was separated 3mm from the catheter hub.The catheter body outer diameter measured 0.045", which is within the specification limits of 0.045"-0.047" per the catheter extrusion product drawing.The catheter body inner diameter at the point of separation measured 0.035", which is within the specification limits of 0.035"-0.037" per the catheter extrusion product drawing.This indicates the catheter wall thickness was within specification.Functional inspection could not be accurately performed due to the damage.A device history record review was performed, and no relevant findings were identified.The ifu provided with the kit informs the user, "do not reinsert needle into catheter; doing so may result in patient injury or catheter damage".The report of a separated catheter was confirmed through complaint investigation.Visual analysis revealed that the catheter body was severed towards the catheter hub.The separated end was not returned.The appearance of the points of separation are consistent with damage resulting from the catheter coming in contact with the needle bevel.Despite the damage, the sample met all relevant dimensional requirements, and a device history record review did not reveal any relevant findings.Based on the customer report and the sample received, unintentional use error likely caused or contributed to this event.Teleflex will continue to monitor and trend for reports of this nature.
|