As the original cannula was already disposed an unused, similar cannula from the same lot was requested for further investigation in the laboratory of the manufacturer on 2020-02-20.The sample was received on 2020-05-04 and investigated in the laboratory on 2020-05-05.Results of laboratory investigation: the received avalon elite 31 fr was not in its original packaging.During visual inspection a kink at the junction of the two lines (inlet and outlet) was noted.The kink compressed the inner line (inlet).This damage was probably caused by packing in the biocontainer and transport.No further abnormalities were detected.For further investigation a medical review was performed by manager medical affairs on 2020-04-17: the large position dependency with respect to the corresponding flow across the catheter could point to a mismatch between the vascular status and the 31 fr dlc (dual lumen catheter) device in question.The physician(s) in charge may have carefully considered, but probably came to the conclusion that the next smaller size of the avalon dlc would not provide sufficient blood flow and thus oxygen delivery shortage and/or carbon dioxide elimination shortcoming.Between the initiation of the procedure on (b)(6) 2020 it has been reported that the extra supports on the catheter and the corresponding circuit were no longer needed and therefore have been removed.But, unfortunately there are no information about skin fixation and suturing gathered that could support this evaluation.According to the report the clinicians seemingly had difficulties with the position dependency and torqueing.Edema or tuberous that declined or increased throughout the first 2 to 3 days in the course of the procedure could have led to the claimed necessity of the ¿extra supports¿ around the catheter and the corresponding circuit.Although it was reported to have gained the ¿perfect placement¿ of the device vasoactive drugs could led to (intermittent) consecutive vasoconstriction that stuck the catheter within the venous vessel ¿ potentially in an unfavorable position.Diuretic drugs also could have amplified a ¿shrinking¿ of the surrounding vascular structure or the skin fixation that also could have promoted the situation.It is unknown whether a visual and/or a blood gas analysis control have been conducted after every repositioning of the patient and the catheter.The mentioned heart failure, as the cause of death, could be a complication stemming from the influenza disease or the patient did suffer already from a heart failure that accumulated during the procedure.A use error can neither be ruled out nor confirmed as insufficient data is available in order to assess.Thus no malfunction of the device could be confirmed.The most probable root cause is a mismatch between the interacting venous vessel walls and the catheter in scope.In addition to that according to the risk assessment (elite-i dual lumen catheter, dms #2041198 v04) following probable root causes could also lead to the reported failure: lack of catheter fixation, unintended repositioning of the catheter due to e.G.Patient transport or repositioning, repositioning without imaging methods, unintended movement and reposition due to removal of introducer or guidewire.When the event occurred, the device was being used for treatment of the patient.The product was directly involved in the incident.The occurrence rate was calculated for the reported issue and it was determined that this is not a systemic issue.Therefore, no remedial action is required.
|