The system was used for treatment.A batch record review of kit lot d366 was conducted.There were no nonconformances associated with this lot.The lot met release requirements.The uvadex lot number was not provided as it was not administered.However, a review of all uvadex lots manufactured since january 2013 was performed.No trends or nonconformances related to the complaint were noted.Trends were reviewed for complaint categories, clot observed and access issues.No trends were detected for these complaint categories.The assessment is based on information available at the time of the investigation.No product was returned for investigation; therefore, it could not be determined if the product met specification based solely on the information provided by the customer.Complaints are monitored through tracking and trending.If a trend is detected, further investigation will be conducted through the capa/continuous improvement process.(b)(4).
|
The customer called to report that both the patient's access and the procedural kit "clotted off" during the procedure.The customer stated that this occurred just before buffy coat collection.The customer reported that she could not remember which alarms occurred, but that the centrifuge bowl had stopped.The customer stated that when she looked in the bowl, the volume in the bowl appeared to be clotted.The customer reported that they aborted the procedure with no blood returned to the patient.The customer stated that the patient received a blood transfusion in order to account for the blood loss.The customer reported that both she and the clinicians believed that the clotting was related to a patient issue, and was not an instrument or kit issue.The customer confirmed that an anticoagulant was used and that it was spiked correctly into the anticoagulant spike line.The customer stated that the patient was discharged from the clinic in stable condition and returned for another photopheresis procedure on (b)(6) 2016.The kit was not returned for investigation.
|