|
|
| Catalog Number |
NA-04550-X1A |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Material Separation (1562); Unraveled Material (1664)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Foreign Body In Patient (2687)
|
| Date of Event |
02/01/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that: er doctor was placing an emergent femoral arterial line as patient was critically ill and they were unable to obtain blood pressure reading.It was a non-sterile procedure as the patient looked like they may code.Ultrasound guidance was used.The doctor tested the wire through the needle, and it was smooth before the procedure.The arterial stick was successful but when they attempted to tread the wire through the needle into the patient, she met resistance.She attempted to pull back the wire but met resistance again.She managed to remove the wire but found that it was uncoiled, and a piece was separated.The ultrasound showed that the end of the wire was in the patient's soft tissue on top of the artery.A cta was done because of the patient's condition, and this confirmed that the wire was not in the vasculature.The wire was left in place on the advice of vascular surgical doctor and the patient was transferred to another hospital because of their critical condition.It was handed over that the patient had the piece of wire in situ, but the team are not aware of what happed after this.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
(b)(4).
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that: er doctor was placing an emergent femoral arterial line as patient was critically ill and they were unable to obtain blood pressure reading.It was a non-sterile procedure as the patient looked like they may code.Ultrasound guidance was used.The doctor tested the wire through the needle, and it was smooth before the procedure.The arterial stick was successful but when they attempted to tread the wire through the needle into the patient, she met resistance.She attempted to pull back the wire but met resistance again.She managed to remove the wire but found that it was uncoiled, and a piece was separated.The ultrasound showed that the end of the wire was in the patient's soft tissue on top of the artery.A cta was done because of the patient's condition, and this confirmed that the wire was not in the vasculature.The wire was left in place on the advice of vascular surgical doctor and the patient was transferred to another hospital because of their critical condition.It was handed over that the patient had the piece of wire in situ, but the team are not aware of what happed after this.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
(b)(4).The customer provided multiple photos for analysis.The complaint of guide wire separated in use can be confirmed from visual inspection of the supplied photos.The first and second photos revealed a complete separation of the core wire and spring coil in the clinical environment.The third photo revealed the lot information from the lidstock.The customer also returned multiple components from the kit, including the catheter, scalpel, chloraprep applicators, and guide wire assembly tubing for analysis.However, the guide wire was not returned for analysis.Visual analysis of the returned components did not reveal any defects or anomalies.A device history record review was performed, and no relevant findings were identified.The instructions for use (ifu) provided with this kit warns the user: "warning: to reduce the risk of guidewire damage, do not retract guidewire against edge of needle while in vessel.Precaution: use care when removing guidewire.If resistance is encountered, remove guidewire and catheter together as a unit.Use of excessive force maydamage catheter or guidewire." the complaint of guide wire separated in use can be confirmed from visual inspection of the supplied photos.The photos revealed a complete separation of the core wire and spring coil in the clinical environment.The customer returned multiple kit components, however the guide wire that was revealed in the supplied customer photos was not returned for investigation.Therefore, verification testing could not be performed since the relevant component to the complaint report was not returned.A device history record review was performed, and no relevant findings were identified.Although the complaint can be confirmed based on the customer provided photos, the probable root cause could not be determined based on the returned sample.Teleflex will continue to monitor and trend for reports of this nature.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|