| Model Number |
N/A |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Difficult or Delayed Separation (4044)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
05/31/2022
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported "during midline placement, microez microintroducer with vessel dilator inserted without complications into pts arm, with proper technique.Introducer sheath is meant to break away once midline catheter is in place, one side of the front end of sheath that is held during breakaway portion snapped off of the sheath, leaving the sheath still in place, however without the portion to hold intact.Remainder of the sheath was able to be removed without complication." add info received 06/06/2022: explant date: (b)(6) 2022 was there any patient harm reported? no.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The manufacturer has received the sample and will evaluate.Results are expected soon.A lot history review (lhr) of regn3992 showed no other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported "during midline placement, microez microintroducer with vessel dilator inserted without complications into pts arm, with proper technique.Introducer sheath is meant to break away once midline catheter is in place, one side of the front end of sheath that is held during breakaway portion snapped off of the sheath, leaving the sheath still in place, however without the portion to hold intact.Remainder of the sheath was able to be removed without complication." add info received 06/06/2022: explant date: (b)(6) 2022.Was there any patient harm reported? no.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
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), applicable manufacture records, and applicable fmea documents.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of a detached sheath is confirmed and was determined to be manufacturing related.One 3.5 fr x 7 cm microintroducer sheath was returned for evaluation.An initial visual observation showed the sheath was returned in three pieces.The proximal end of the detached piece of the sheath was observed to be ragged.A microscopic observation revealed some use residue on the returned sample.The tab on the sheath which is usually within the t-lock handle of the microintroducer was observed to be torn and incomplete.The investigation was forwarded to the manufacturing facility for further evaluation, and bd is working closely with the manufacturing facility to prevent recurrence of the reported event.H3 other text: evaluation findings are in section h11.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|