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 hole in the groshong tubing was confirmed, but the cause could not be determined.One 4 fr s/l groshong picc was returned for investigation.The picc was received with the 3cg stylet in the lumen.Crystalline residue was observed in the catheter lumen.A functional test revealed three spraying leaks between the 55 and 57 cm depth marks and one spraying leak between the 19 and 20 cm depth mark.A microscopic examination of the leak sites revealed longitudinal splits in the tubing.This type of damage can occur if the stylet is retracted without wetting the hydrophilic stylet.The ifu states, ¿preflush catheter with sterile normal saline or heparinized saline to wet hydrophilic stylet.¿ the damage may have occurred if the catheter was compressed over the stylet.Even though the stylet appeared to be a contributing factor in the damage, it could not be determined when or how the tubing was damaged.A lot history review (lhr) review is not possible, as no manufacturing lot number has been provided by the complainant.
|