Model Number M00566521 |
Device Problem
Human-Device Interface Problem (2949)
|
Patient Problem
No Consequences Or Impact To Patient (2199)
|
Event Date 07/14/2019 |
Event Type
malfunction
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
The complainant was unable to provide the suspect device lot number; therefore, the lot expiration and device manufacture dates are unknown at this time.(b)(6).(b)(4).Evaluation conclusion codes: the device has not been received for analysis.Upon receipt and completion of the failure analysis of the complaint device, if there is any further relevant information from that review, a supplemental medwatch will be filed.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported to boston scientific corporation that an endovive safety peg kit pull method was used during a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy procedure performed on (b)(6) 2019.According to the complainant, the procedure and the placement was performed without issue which was confirmed via the endoscope that the bolster part was properly placed in the stomach.On july 14, the feeding tube was found on the bedside.It is unknown if it was intentionally removed or it was removed by accident as the patient was bedridden.There were no patient complications reported as a result of this event.
|
|
Event Description
|
It was reported to boston scientific corporation that an endovive safety peg kit pull method was used during a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy procedure performed on (b)(6) 2019.According to the complainant, the procedure and the placement was performed without issue which was confirmed via the endoscope that the bolster part was properly placed in the stomach.On july 14, the feeding tube was found on the bedside.It is unknown if it was intentionally removed or it was removed by accident as the patient was bedridden.There were no patient complications reported as a result of this event.Additional information received on 19sep2019: reportedly, the complaint device was replaced with a non bsc device.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
(investigation results): visula examination of the returned device revealed that the domed peg tube does not have any visual damage, the device is intact.The internal bolster/dome does not have any visible damage.The reported incident that the peg tube - patient removal could not be visually or functionally verified.As per complaint information the device was placed without issue for some days, this indicates that likely the device was unintentionally removed.Directions for use mentions "inadvertent removal" as a possible complication of the device usage.Therefore, the most probable cause of this complaint is known inherent risk of device since reported adverse event known and documented in the labeling.A dhr (device history record) review was performed and did not identify evidence of deviations or non-conformances in the manufacturing processes that could contribute to the complaint.The dhr review confirms that the accepted device met all manufacturing specifications.The complainant was unable to provide the suspect device lot number; therefore, the lot expiration and device manufacture dates are unknown at this time.(initial reporter facility name): (b)(6).(initial reporter city): (b)(6).(device codes): problem code 2949 captures the reportable event of peg tube intentional/unintentional patient removal.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|