|
Updated fields: b4, d9, g3, g6, h2, h3, h4, h6 (medical device problem code, type of investigation, investigation findings, component codes and investigation conclusions), h11.No decon or visual inspection performed since product was not returned and could not be evaluated.(b)(6), an rn in the micu, contacted the emergency support line regarding a recurring gas gain alarm on a cardiosave iabp, with no reported patient harm.Initial troubleshooting steps, including using the start and iab fill keys and inspecting helium tubing, were performed, and the balloon was noted to be placed axillary.Despite switching to a second pump (os# (b)(4)), the alarm persisted, prompting further product surveillance and a recommendation to consider balloon exchange.The balloon, originally placed on (b)(6) 2025, was ultimately replaced in the cath lab due to continued alarms on both pumps based on the description, the recurring gas gain alarms were likely due to a compromised or malfunctioning intra-aortic balloon catheter, possibly exacerbated by the axillary placement, which is known to carry additional risks and limitations.It is impossible to define what could have caused the alarm since the product was not returned for investigation.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.
|