| Model Number |
N/A |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Difficult or Delayed Separation (4044)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
07/25/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
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.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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the picc was placed as per policy and procedure at bedside.Unable to peel away microez microintroducer, 4.5f (1.6mm id x 2.3 mm od x 7cm length).Microintroducer did not break at hub as it is supposed to do.Instead, one of the orange wings cracked off and the orange piece circling the top of the sheath stayed intact making it impossible to peel away the sheath and complete picc insertion.Picc exchanged over guidewire without difficulty, procedure completed.Max barrier maintained throughout procedure.
|
| |
|
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 an improper break is confirmed and was determined to be manufacturing related.One 4.5 fr microintroducer sheath was returned for evaluation.An initial visual observation revealed use residue on the sample.The t-handle was observed to have improperly split, with the handles not cleanly breaking along the length of the skive.The sheath remained attached to one side of the t-handle and was observed to not be split/peeled.A microscopic observation revealed plastic deformation and lightening of the material at the break site within the t-handle.The skiving of the t-handle appeared to be insufficient.Photographs of the returned sample were forwarded to the manufacturing site for further evaluation.This complaint will be recorded for future trending and monitoring purposes.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|