|
C.R. BARD, INC. (BASD) -3006260740 POWERPORT ISP M.R.I. IMPLANTABLE PORT, CHRONOFLEX SINGLE-LUMEN, 8F; PORT & CATHETER, IMPLANTED, SUBCUTANEOUS, INTRAVASCULAR
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
1808050 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method (2017); Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Hypersensitivity/Allergic reaction (1907); Itching Sensation (1943); Burning Sensation (2146)
|
| Date of Event |
02/22/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10: as the lot number for the device was provided, a review of the device history records is currently being performed.The return of the sample is pending.The investigation of the reported event is currently underway.H10: d4 (expiry date: 07/2025).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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that sometimes post a port placement, the patient allegedly experienced burning and itching at the port location.Reportedly, patient was prescribed with antihistamines and corticosteroid medicines for treatment.The current status of the patient was unknown.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that sometime post a port placement, the patient allegedly experienced burning and itching at the port location.Reportedly, patient was prescribed with antihistamines and corticosteroid medicines for treatment.The current status of the patient is unknown.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10: manufacturing review: a manufacturing review was not required as this is the only complaint reported to date for this product and lot.Investigation summary: the physical device was not returned for evaluation.No photos were provided for review.Therefore, the investigation is inconclusive for the reported allergy issue as no objective evidence was provided for review.Furthermore, clinical conditions alleged in the complaint cannot be confirmed.However, the investigation is confirmed for the identified improper procedure or method issue as the patient was allergic to silicone.The definitive root cause for the reported allergy could not be determined based upon available information.Labeling review: a review of product labeling documentation (e.G., procedural instructions, indications, warnings, precautions, cautions, possible complications, contraindications, nursing guide, and unit label) did not find any product labeling inadequacy.The instructions for use states that, prior to placement: check patient¿s records, and ask patient, whether they have any known allergies to chemicals or materials that will be used during the placement procedure.H10: d4 (expiration date: 07/2025).H11: section a through f ¿ the information provided by bd represents all 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.H3 other text : device not returned.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|