|
The date of event was not provided by the complainant/reporter, the date reflected in this report is the date bd became aware of the event.The manufacturer has received the sample and will evaluate.Results are expected soon.A lot history review (lhr) review is not possible, as no manufacturing lot number has been provided by the complainant.
|
|
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, applicable previous investigation(s), photo analysis and applicable fmea documents.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint that the tubing clotted off was inconclusive due to the sample condition.A photograph of the proximal end of a powertrialysis catheter was returned for evaluation.The photograph was framed so that only the extension legs and were visible.The extension legs were not clamped and red liquid, which appeared to be blood, was visible in the venous and arterial extension legs.It could not be determined from the photograph if the line was actively being used and/or if the fluid in the extension leg was clotted.The extension legs were pre-curved but the curves were straightened out in the photograph.No tight kinks or collapsing was seen in the extension leg tubing.It is possible that a restriction was present in the curved section of the catheter, but this could not be independently confirmed from the returned photograph.Other possible contributing factors for an occlusion could include patient physiology (e.G., stenosed vessel), catheter maintenance, positional occlusions, catheter collapse, or catheter kinks.H3 other text: evaluation findings are in section h11.
|