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), applicable manufacture records, and applicable fmea documents.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of a damaged guidewire is inconclusive due to the state of the returned sample.One 4.5 fr x 5 cm microintroducer was returned for evaluation.An initial visual observation showed some use residue on the returned sample.The distal tip of the dilator was observed to be damaged.No damage was observed on the sheath.No guidewire was returned with the microintroducer.A microscopic observation revealed the edges of the dilator tip were rough, uneven, and plastically deformed.Some whitening of the material around the damage on the dilator tip was observed, and one edge of the dilator tip was observed to flare outward.While damage was found on the returned microintroducer that could have been caused by difficulties in threading a guidewire through the dilator, the alleged failure of a damaged guidewire could not be confirmed as no guidewire was returned for evaluation.Therefore, this complaint is inconclusive at this time.A lot history review (lhr) of (b)(4) showed no other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.
|