A user facility reported that the blood within the extracorporeal circuit clotted while a patient was undergoing a routinely scheduled hemodialysis (hd) treatment.The blood pump continued pumping, however, the blood had clotted, and therefore, failed to circulate through the circuit.No machine alarms were generated.The patient was using heparin during the hd therapy with the initial setup.The extracorporeal circuit was discarded, and the patient was re-strung on the same machine.The patient's estimated blood loss (ebl) from the initial setup being discarded was noted as being approximately 400ml.The hd treatment was continued on the same machine, with a new setup, however, the blood lines clotted once again.No machine alarms were generated.Once again, it was noted that the patient was using heparin.This patient's estimated blood loss from the second extracorporeal circuit being discarded was noted as being approximately 400ml.The patient was then restrung on a new machine with new supplies.The hd treatment was continued and was able to be successfully completed with no further issues occurring.The patient experienced hypotension at the end of the treatment, which the nurse attributed to the blood loss.The patient was administered additional epogen, but did not require any medical intervention.No other patient adverse effects were experienced.The user facility indicated that the blood pump worked properly and never stopped, however, the blood failed to circulate through the lines.Following the event, the unit was pulled from service.Although follow-up information was received which revealed that the machine has been returned to service at the user facility with no further issues being reported, it was noted that no evaluation was performed by the on-site biomedical technician.The disposable bloodlines were not available to be returned to the manufacturer for evaluation as both were discarded by the user facility.
|
The device was not returned to the manufacturer for physical evaluation.Additionally, no on-site evaluation of the unit was performed by a fresenius regional equipment specialist (res) and no parts were returned for failure analysis.Follow-up information was provided by the biomed at the user facility who revealed that the reported issue was not duplicated after removing the unit from service and testing.Functional testing performed by the biomedical engineer confirmed the unit was operating properly.The unit has been returned to service at the user facility without a recurrence of the event as reported.A records review was performed on the reported serial number.An investigation of the device manufacturing records was conducted by the manufacturer.There were no deviations or non-conformances during the manufacturing process which could be associated with the reported event.In addition, the device history record (dhr) review confirmed the labeling, material, and process controls were within specification.A definitive conclusion regarding the complaint incident cannot be reached without a physical examination of the complaint device.
|