The information provided by bard represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bard.The manufacturer has received the sample and will evaluate.Results are expected soon.A lot history review (lhr) review is not possible, as no manufacturing lot number has been provided by the complainant.
|
The following were reviewed as part of this investigation: patient severity, frequency analysis, applicable previous investigation(s), sample (if available), applicable fmea documents, labeling, and applicable manufacture records.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of a leak path in the arterial lumen of the catheter was unconfirmed since the reported event could not be replicated.One 19cm hemostar catheter was returned for investigation.The catheter exhibited evidence of use.Residue was observed within the fibers of the cuff.The section of d/l tubing proximal to the cuff and the bifurcation were yellow in color.The extension legs were cloudy and the clamps were pink in color.A functional test revealed no pathway for air to enter the arterial (red) lumen.The arterial lumen was pressurized with water, but no leaks were observed.The arterial lumen was aspirated while the distal tip of the catheter was clamped, but and no air entered the syringe.When pressurizing the venous (blue) lumen, a leak was observed at the proximal end of the cuff.A microscopic examination of the leak site in the venous lumen revealed slits in the tubing.The cuff fibers were also cut over the damaged area of tubing.The breach in the tubing is consistent with sharp instrument damage that occurs during surgical removal of the cuff and catheter.Since the complainant validated that the air was only in the arterial (red) lumen and since the reported event could not be replicated, the complaint was unconfirmed.A lot history review (lhr) review is not possible, as no manufacturing lot number has been provided by the complainant.
|