| Model Number |
N/A |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Improper or Incorrect Procedure or Method (2017); Failure to Infuse (2340)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Pain (1994); Swelling/ Edema (4577)
|
| Date of Event |
05/08/2025
|
|
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.
|
| |
|
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 device has not been received by the manufacturer for evaluation.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.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported there is concern for intravascular crystallization when incompatible medications are delivered through separate lumens of the 2 lumen provena midline catheters.This issue makes the product inappropriate as it confuses bedside rns who are accustomed to 2 lumen picc lines which are similar in appearance, occupy the same upper arm vasculature, and are capable of infusing incompatible meds through separate lumens.This incompatibility issue did not arise from a confirmed adverse event; however, we placed two double lumen provena midlines before removing them from device circulation due to persistent reports of occlusion and subsequent concern for infiltration shortly after insertion of both lines.We believe these lines were possibly used to administer incompatible medications which led to device malfunction before their removal.Two patients experienced symptoms of infiltration with pain and swelling near the ipsilateral shoulders, however, venous us was performed and resulted in negative findings for mechanical occlusions.Lines were both pulled prior to vat assessment.Antidotes for possible infiltration were not administered but warm compresses were applied to ease patient discomfort.It was reported this event occurred with two devices.This report addresses both devices.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|