The caller alleged a discrepant low inratio inr result in comparison to the laboratory inr result.On (b)(6) 2015, the inratio inr was 2.0 which was in the patient's therapeutic range of 2.0 - 3.0.On (b)(6) 2015, the patient noted bruising on his arms and was hospitalized for stomach pain which was not diagnosed.The laboratory inr, at the hospital, was 9.0.Treatment included the administration of vitamin k and holding of coumadin.On (b)(6) 2015, the laboratory inr was 3.6 and the patient was discharged from the hospital in stable condition.On (b)(6) 2015, the inratio inr was 1.6 and the patient was instructed to resume his coumadin on (b)(6) 2015.On (b)(6) 2015, the inratio inr was 3.1.There was no additional information provided.
|
Investigation/conclusion: it is indicated that product is not returning for evaluation.Since the product associated with the complaint was not returned, a review of in-house testing was performed.The retain strip testing results met both accuracy and repeatability criteria.The product performed as expected and no product deficiencies were observed.The manufacturing records for the lot were reviewed and there were issues related to this complaint.Since the monitor was not returned, the impedance curve associated with the discrepant result could not be analyzed for characteristics of a weak-slope change.An impedance curve with a weak-slope change has been identified in (b)(4) to contribute to a potential discrepant result.The root cause is unable to be determined at this time without product return.Further investigation into this issue is being performed under (b)(4).
|