The cause for the lower (normal) advia centaur xp ft4 results compared to higher (above normal) ft4 results tested at sister facility on a different ft4 test method is unknown.The customer's quality control results were within acceptable ranges.There were no related errors observed in system event log, and no other assay testing issues at the time of the event.The physician(s) was expecting a normal ft4 result based on clinical evidence, however it is uncertain which ft4 test method results are considered discordant.Siemens in investigating.The instruction for use (ifu) under the interpretation of results section states the following: "results of this assay should always be interpreted in conjunction with patient's medical history, clinical presentation and other findings.".
|
Low advia centaur xp ft4 results were obtained by the customer and considered discordant compared to higher ft4 results tested at sister facility on a different ft4 test method.The patient was originally tested at the customer's site in (b)(6) 2016 and the ft4 result was normal on an alternate test method.The patient was redrawn, tested in (b)(6) 2016 at the same sister site, and the ft4 result was elevated.The following month ((b)(6) 2016) the patient was redrawn, tested on the advia centaur xp by this customer, and the ft4 result was lower.The patient was redrawn and tested in (b)(6) 2017 at the sister site and the ft4 result was elevated on an alternate test method.The patient was redrawn, tested on the advia centaur xp by this customer in (b)(6) 2017, and the ft4 result was lower, and a delay in result reporting.Patient treatment was not prescribed or altered.There was no report of adverse health consequences due to the lower ft4 results.
|