|
C.R. BARD, INC. (BASD) -3006260740 POLYURETHANE, POWERPICC PROVENA SOLO2, 3CG; PERIPHERALLY INSERTED CENTRAL CATHETER
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Model Number |
N/A |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Material Deformation (2976)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Pain (1994)
|
| Date of Event |
05/02/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported by customer that while placing a picc line, when utilizing the introducer to dilate, the patient reported pain when dilating even though lidocaine was sufficiently used.When dilator was removed it was noticed the damage to the sheath where it had buckled/bent and became sharp, this was then replaced with a new introducer with no issues.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
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.Each event reported to bd is evaluated and investigated in accordance with our complaint investigation procedures.The investigation process includes, but is not limited to, evaluation of the event details provided by the complaint facility, a review of complaint history, manufacturing records and risk document where applicable, and an evaluation of the subject device when available to identify potential contributing factors.The device has not been returned to the manufacturer for evaluation.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
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.The complaint of difficult microintroducer advancement is confirmed and was determined to be use related.The product returned for evaluation was one 3.5fr microez microintroducer.The returned product sample was evaluated and the tip of the sheath was observed to be damaged.The following observations were noted during the sample evaluation: ¿ usage residue was seen on the sample.¿ slight buckling of the edges of the sheath was present.The shape, location, and extent of the damage observed on the returned sample suggested that the microintroducer sheath was most likely damaged due to excessive insertion force, an inadequate skin nick, and/or a steep insertion angle.The damage observed on the sheath would likely have made it difficult to advance the microintroducer past the tip of the sheath.This complaint will be recorded for future trending and monitoring purposes.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|