|
It was initially reported that an intra-aortic balloon (iab) catheter exploded while being used on a patient.Additional information: patient had a 8f 50ml iabp on her right fem.Iabp alarmed "increase gas leak".Upon further assessment, helium tubing showed a significant backflow of blood at the site.There was also an audible leak.Iabp was reportedly no longer was functioning properly.Nurse removed iabp at bedside and applied manual pressure for approximately 10 minutes and achieved hemostasis.Further applied femostop and protocol to decrease pressure, while maintaining a patent pulse.
|
|
Corrected fields: d10, e1 (event site state), h6 (medical device ¿ problem code).Updated fields: b4, d9, g1(contact person ¿ mfg site), g3, g6, h2, h3, h6(investigation findings, type of investigation, investigation conclusions, component code, health effect ¿ clinical code, health effect ¿ impact codes), h11.The product was returned with the membrane completely unfolded and blood on the interior and exterior of the catheter and between catheter and sheath.The maquet sheath was returned covering the catheter tubing.A kink was observed on the catheter tubing approximately 58.2cm from the iab tip.The extender tubing was also returned.An underwater leak test of the balloon, catheter, y-fitting, extracorporeal tubing and extender tubing was performed and a leak was detected on the membrane approximately 0.51cm from the iab tip measuring 0.013cm length.The reported problems were most likely triggered by a leak which was found on the membrane by the rear seal.Under magnification, a whitish patch was observed around the leak.This whitish patch is the typical appearance of an abrasion mark which is caused by calcified plaque in the aorta.A lot history record review was completed for the reported product.No nonconformances were found that are considered to be related to the event.The failure mode is addressed in the risk file and is operating within its risk profile.The ifu addresses the reported failure.There were no ncmrs identified which could cause or contribute to the reported failure.The investigation does not indicate that the device was inadvertently released as non-conforming or an adulterated product or was a counterfeit.The complaint history review did not identify an adverse trend (increase in number of complaints over past three (3) months).Based on the rational provided above, no escalation to the capa process is required.
|