|
C.R. BARD, INC. (BASD) -3006260740 TITANIUM DOME IMPLANTABLE PORT, GROSHONG SINGLE-LUMEN, 8F; PORT & CATHETER, IMPLANTED, SUBCUTANEOUS, INTRAVASCULAR
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
0602850 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Fracture (1260); Material Separation (1562); Migration (4003)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Chest Pain (1776); Appropriate Clinical Signs, Symptoms and Conditions Term/Code Not Available (4581); No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
09/28/2023
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported through the litigation process that sometimes post a port placement, the catheter was allegedly fractured.However, the current status of the patient is unknown.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10: as the lot number for the device was not provided, a review of the device history records could not be performed.The sample was not returned to the manufacturer for inspection/evaluation.Therefore, the investigation of the reported event is inconclusive.Based upon the available information, the definitive root cause for this event is unknown.The instructions for use (ifu) is adequate for the reported device/patient code(s) and provides general instructions for use, as well as warnings, precautions and potential complications associated with the device.Upon receipt of new or additional information, a follow-up report will be submitted as applicable.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.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10: manufacturing review: a manufacturing review was not requested as the lot number reported is unknown.Investigation summary: the device was not returned for evaluation.Medical records were not provided.Therefore, the investigation is inconclusive for the reported fracture issue as no objective evidence was provided for review.Furthermore, clinical conditions alleged in the complaint cannot be confirmed.Based upon the available information, the definitive root cause is unknown.Labeling review: as the reported event did not allege a labeling or use related issue, a labeling review is not required.H10: g3.H11: b5.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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported through the litigation process that sometime post a port placement, the catheter was allegedly fractured.There was no reported patient injury.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H10: additional information was received, and the file was reassessed for reportability and determined to be reportable as serious injury.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 device was not returned for evaluation.The medical record review states that a bard titanium dome implantable port was placed in a patient through subclavian vein approach after being diagnosed with refractory hypokalemia and phlebosclerosis.The nurse reported that the patient¿s port was doing well with no signs of infection, or any complaints by patient.After five months and sixteen days, the left side of chest wall, the catheter had allegedly fractured and migrated into the patient¿s right side of the heart with the tip projecting at the level of the pulmonary artery.The next day the patient underwent removal of the fractured catheter fragment.A 15 mm in diameter gooseneck snare was then advanced down the superior vena cava, right atrium, right ventricle, and into the pulmonary artery to snare the tip of the fractured catheter and removed entirely.Later, subcutaneous port was then excised from the left anterior chest wall.The port body was removed using a combination of both blunt and sharp dissection and replaced with a new port.The current status of the patient is unknown.Therefore, the investigation is confirmed for the reported fracture, material separation and migration issues.Furthermore, clinical conditions alleged in the complaint cannot be confirmed.Based upon the available information, the definitive root cause is unknown.Labeling review: as the reported event did not allege a labeling or use related issue, a labeling review is not required.H10: d4 (expiration date: 03/2021), g2, g3, h6 (device, method).H11: b3, b5, d4 (medical device lot number), h1, h6 (patient, result).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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported through the litigation process that five years and sixteen days post a port placement in the left side of chest wall, the catheter had allegedly fractured.It was further reported that the fractured catheter fragment had allegedly migrated into the patient¿s right side of the heart with the tip projecting at the level of the pulmonary artery.Furthermore, the patient allegedly experienced chest pain as a result of the defective port catheter fragment.Evidently, the retained portion of the fractured catheter fragment was removed with a snare device.Reportedly, the port body was removed in its entirety and replaced with a new port.The current status of the patient is unknown.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|