| Model Number |
FT17AN40NGF950N |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Break (1069); Material Separation (1562)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Decreased Respiratory Rate (2485); Respiratory Insufficiency (4462)
|
| Date of Event |
03/19/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Other text: d4: lot number, expiration date and h4: device manufacture date is unknown, no information has been provided to date.Investigation including root cause analysis is in progress.A supplemental mdr will be filed as necessary in accordance with 21 cfr 803.56 when additional reportable information becomes available.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the tracheostomy was out of patient's neck.Upon inspection it was found that the flange loop on trach broke allowing trach ties to become disconnected.The patient was then able to pull the trach out causing desaturations and bradycardia due to loss of airway.A new, emergency trach was inserted, and patient recovered.During trach care while the nurse was tying trach ties to secure the trach, a snap noise was heard and noticed the trach flange had split and broken; an unplanned trach change was performed.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Email is: regulatory.Responses@icumed.Com.Device evaluation: five used tracheostomy devices without packaging were returned for analysis (3 of part# ft17an40ngf950n, 1 of part# ft17an35ngf951n and one part# unknown).Based on information provided by the complainant, it was determined that four devices with known part numbers were built at the southington facility and the remaining device with unknown part number was highly probable to have been built at the tijuana facility.The devices were visually examined for potential nonconformances, with four out of five samples displaying evidence of damaged and/or torn eyelet(s) on the neck flanges.The observed damage and tears in the neck flange eyelets is consistent with the use of a sharp-edged tube holder.Based on device analysis, the complaint cannot be confirmed as a manufacturing nonconformance, but is highly probable to have been caused by a variation in user technique.No correction or corrective actions will be conducted by the manufacturing facility at this time.Complaint information will continue to be monitored.No lot number was provided.Therefore no device history report (dhr) review could be performed.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|