|
|
| Model Number |
0684-00-0470-01 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Failure to Read Input Signal (1581)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
07/13/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Due to character limitation, below field are added from e1- event site name: (b)(6).A supplemental report will be submitted upon completion of our investigation.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported by nurse that during iab (intra aortic balloon) therapy, concerns regarding poor arterial waveform quality.She described the waveform as abnormal and inconsistent, even when the patient was not experiencing ectopy.The console screen image showed low pressures (62/50), a poor arterial waveform with whip, and an augmentation of 75 mmhg.No patient harm or injury was reported.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
N/a.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Updated fields: b4, g3, g6, h2, h6, h11 corrected fields: d9.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Updated data: b4, g3, g6, h1, h2, h11.Corrected data: h4.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Updated fields: b4, d8, d9, e1 event site email, g3, g6, h2, h3, h6 (type of investigation, investigation findings, investigation conclusions, component code), h11.No decon or visual inspection performed since product was not returned and could not be evaluated.Therefore, we were unable to confirm or determine a root cause for the reported failure.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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
N/a.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Updated field: b4; g3; g6; h2; h3; h6 investigation findings, investigation conclusions; h11 corrected fields: g2.No decon or visual inspection performed since product was not returned and could not be evaluated.Since product was not returned and could not be evaluated.Based on the event description, the root cause has been identified as user preference due to poor waveform and suboptimal catheter positioning.(b)(6), an icu rn, reported poor arterial waveform quality while using the cardiosave device.The ecg source was external, and the waveform showed signs of artifact and whip, with low pressures and augmentation.Troubleshooting took place but the waveform quality did not improve.The esp team explained the causes of waveform artifact and discussed catheter positioning recommendations.(b)(6) was advised to consult the attending physician for further intervention and was appreciative of the support.The ecg source was external and likely contributed to signal degradation.Additionally, the catheter tip was positioned at the aortic knob rather than the recommended 2nd¿3rd intercostal space, which may have caused the arterial waveform artifact.Lack of aspiration to verify lumen patency per facility policy also limited troubleshooting options.There was no malfunction of the iab; rather, the customer required assistance to navigate the proper use of the device.The navigation provided was not in response to a iab failure, but solely to guide the healthcare provider in operating the iab correctly.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.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|