|
|
| Model Number |
275005 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Incorrect, Inadequate or Imprecise Result or Readings (1535)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
05/26/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that during use with the bd macro-vue¿ rpr card test, false results were obtained.There was no report of patient impact.The following information was provided by the initial reporter: box 5/6 of the reagent that arrived on 02-07-2023 from rpr was opened, the first vial of the three that comes in the box was used.A reactive sample was analyzed, which was titrated, and it presented persistent agglutination up to the titer 1/1028.Given this situation, we proceeded to analyze non-reactive peec samples, and at the time of analysis, they presented weak agglutination or aggregation.A second vial from the same box was used and the process was repeated, concluding in the same situation.Finally, a vial from another box was used, and it was reprocessed with the non-reactive peec sample, obtaining the non-reactive result, concluding that the reagents in that box were possibly defective.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H3.A device evaluation is anticipated but has not yet begun.Upon completion of the investigation, a supplemental report will be filed.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
After further evaluation of the complaint, it has been determined that the previously submitted report 2647876-2023-00038 was sent in error.There was no report of serious injury, medical intervention, or reportable device malfunction.Therefore this is not considered to be a reportable malfunction.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that during use with the bd macro-vue¿ rpr card test, false results were obtained.There was no report of patient impact.The following information was provided by the initial reporter: box 5/6 of the reagent that arrived on (b)(6) 2023 from rpr was opened, the first vial of the three that comes in the box was used.A reactive sample was analyzed, which was titrated, and it presented persistent agglutination up to the titer 1/1028.Given this situation, we proceeded to analyze non-reactive peec samples, and at the time of analysis, they presented weak agglutination or aggregation.A second vial from the same box was used and the process was repeated, concluding in the same situation.Finally, a vial from another box was used, and it was reprocessed with the non-reactive peec sample, obtaining the non-reactive result, concluding that the reagents in that box were possibly defective.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|