|
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, complaint and lot history review, applicable previous investigation(s), sample (if available), labeling, and applicable fmea documents.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of a damaged catheter is confirmed.One 4 fr dual lumen powerpicc sv catheter was returned for evaluation.An initial visual observation showed use residue on and within the returned sample.A large longitudinal split was observed in the catheter tubing between the 25 and 26 cm depth markers.Tensile weakness was observed in the catheter tubing around the area of the split.A microscopic observation revealed an additional circumferential split just distal to the large longitudinal split, and a small hole was found in the septum of the catheter tubing between these two splits.The edges of the longitudinal split were observed to be straight but somewhat rippled and the fracture surfaces were found to be flat and granular in texture.The edges of the circumferential split were observed to be straight with some superficial splitting, webbing, and whitening of the catheter material at the corners of the split.The fracture surfaces of the circumferential split were observed to be flat and granular.The damage observed in the returned sample was characteristic of over-pressurization (burst) damage.This can occur through the use of syringes smaller than 10ml, by flushing against an occlusion, or due to excessive force applied during infusion procedures.
|