|
The following were reviewed as part of this investigation: patient severity, applicable previous investigation(s), sample analysis, applicable fmea documents, applicable manufacturing records, and labeling.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of a loop in the catheter was confirmed, but the cause could not be determined from the radiographic image was provided for investigation.The image showed what was consistent with a dual-lumen powerpicc.The section of tubing that was in the region of the upper arm appeared to be kinked or looped.The distal tip of the catheter appeared to be outside the boundaries of the image.Kinking of the catheter may have been a contributing factor of the reported lack of blood return.It was reported that the picc was believed to be positional.It appeared that the damage occurred during use; however, the exact cause could not be determined.The kinking of the catheter may have been affected by the insertion and/or securement technique and patient movement.A review of the manufacturing records showed no evidence that the damage was caused by the manufacturing process.The instructions for use (ifu) state, ¿avoid placement or securement of the catheter where kinking may occur, to minimize stress on the catheter, patency problems or patient discomfort.¿ a lot history review (lhr) of redx1880 showed two other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.The complaints for this lot number have been reported from the same facility.
|
|
It was reported that on 6/30, nurse reported picc to be positional, but catheter does not have a blood return.On 7/1, picc competed occluded in both lumens.Chest x-ray showed picc tip in svc and arm x-ray showed loop in the arm, 10 cm above the insertion site.Picc was removed and piv inserted.
|