A registered nurse (rn), called into technical support requesting field evaluation on the device after a patient "went into cardiac arrest" during his hemodialysis treatment.His blood was returned, cpr was performed and the patient was transported to the emergency room.Follow up w/the rn indicated this patient was being dialyzed on the k@home at his nursing home.He was admitted there as a result of a cerebral bleed due to a motor vehicle accident.She stated he was under more or less "end of life" care.Prior to his treatment on the date of event, her assessment did not show anything unusual.His treatment time was ordered to be three hours.Approximately 1.5 hours into treatment, he became unresponsive w/no breathing or heartbeat.Up to this point, there were no unusual events or indications of impending cardiac issues.There were no unusual device alarms or product malfunctions nor were any alleged.He expired on (b)(6) 2015.
|
Medical records were received and the results of the clinical investigation reveal the following: on (b)(6) 2015, approximately 1.5 hours into a 3 hour hd treatment, the patient became unresponsive, went into cardiopulmonary arrest, cardiopulmonary resuscitation was administered, the patient was re-infused with all of his blood returned to him, and was transported to an emergency department and admitted to a hospital.On (b)(6) 2015, the patient expired.The received medical record does not contain dialysis treatment records, progress notes, physician orders, or medication records from the even or outcome dates.Laboratory data from (b)(6) 2015 showed bicarbonate 32 result.The received medical records did not contain a death certificate or an autopsy report.There is no documentation in the medical records supporting a possible association between the saline solutions, hemodialysis machine, extracorporeal circuit, dialyzer, acid bath, bicarbonate bag, and the event of cardiopulmonary arrest.The device was not returned to the manufacturer for physical evaluation.The customer was unable to provide the manufacturer with the lot number of the blood lines used in the reported event.As no lot number was provided by th complainant, a record review was performed on each of the lot numbers shipped to the complainant in the three months leading up to the reported event.The batch production records for these lots were reviewed.The batch records confirmed tha released product met specifications; and documented manufacturing process controls were within specification.Per the documented product investigation, there was no indication that the fresenius blood lines caused, contributed to or was a factor in the reported event.
|