|
H11: section a through f - the information provided by bd represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bd.The following were reviewed as part of this investigation: patient severity, trend analysis, applicable previous investigation(s), sample (if available), and applicable fmea documents.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of a leaking catheter was confirmed.The product returned for evaluation was one 5fr t/l powerpicc catheter.Usage residues were observed throughout the sample and needleless injection caps were attached to all three luer adapters.The sample was returned with a securacath catheter stabilization device.Compression damage was observed in the catheter shaft between the 0cm and 2cm depth markings.The compression resulted in a ridge-like feature in the catheter shaft.A longitudinally aligned split was observed between the 0cm and 2cm depth markings, which occurred at the top of the ridge.A second smaller longitudinally aligned split was observed circumferentially opposite the larger split.Microscopic inspection of the splits revealed dully granular fracture surfaces.Material buckling and discoloration were observed in the vicinity of the splits.The compression damage, including the formed ridgeline was consistent with features replicated through bench testing, by applying securacath catheter stabilization devices within the taper region of bd powerpicc catheters.The compression and leakage were consistent with damage caused by application of a securacath catheter stabilization device within the taper region of the catheter shaft.These observations were consistent with the event description, which indicated use of a securacath.Use of catheter stabilization devices that compress the catheter shaft is not recommended, as that compression may cause catheter damage.
|