Results of the clinical investigation are as follows: based on the 36 pages of medical records information it appears that on (b)(6) 2015, this (b)(6) male patient was admitted into the hospital with shortness of breath.There are no admitting diagnoses for this event but, the patient was found to have dyspnea, hypertension, with ischemia and other cardiac etiology possible.The patient was admitted to the medical floor.Medical records state the patient was due for dialysis on (b)(6) 2015 but, did not receive it he had a previous admission on (b)(6) 2015 for shortness of breath and the patient was found to be acutely fluid overloaded, however, there was no evidence of fluid overload found during the (b)(6) 2015 admission.According to the hemodialysis registered nurse, these hospitalizations had nothing to do with product malfunctions.There is no documentation in the medical record that indicates a causal relationship between the patient's 2008k at home machine or concomitant hemodialysis products and the patient's shortness of breath.There was no evidence of pyrogen reaction or fever.Medical records reveal the patient has a history of cardiac issues which in addition to small pleural effusions were likely contributors to the patient's dyspnea.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 home hemo combiset used in the reported event.As no lot number was provided by the 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 that released product met specifications; and documented manufacturing process controls were within specifications.Per the documented product investigation, there was no indication that the fresenius optiflux dialyzer caused, contributed to or was a factor in the reported event.
|