|
Updated data: b4, g3, g6, h1, h2, h11.Corrected data: corrected field:e1 (event site city, state code)event site address line 2: will be blank.
|
|
It was reported through a direct call from the customer, stating that the patient was stable but augmentation was lower than the systolic.It was also mentioned that the inner lumen of intra-aortic balloon (iab) was clotted.It was determined that the alleged issue was not related to a device malfunction, rather user error that allowed the inner lumen to clot.No patient harm or injury reported.
|
|
Updated fields: b4, d9(device available for eval), g3, g6, h2, h3, h6(type of investigation, investigation findings, component codes, investigation conclusions), h11.No decon or visual inspection performed since product was not returned and could not be evaluated.A complaint was received via a direct call to the emergency support program regarding low augmentation on a cardiosave iabp.Troubleshooting with the fellow and (b)(6) confirmed the catheter and pump were functioning as intended, with no patient harm reported.The issue was traced to a clotted inner lumen, likely due to user error (inadequate or missed flushing).The inner lumen could not be aspirated, and guidance was provided to cap it and use an alternate arterial pressure source.It was also clarified in the call that it is not recommended systemic heparin or continued use of a clotted lumen.Miscommunication was identified between the overnight resident and esp regarding the use of the clotted lumen.User error ¿ failure to maintain inner lumen patency, leading to clot formation.This resulted in inaccurate pressure readings and low augmentation.Additionally, there was miscommunication regarding appropriate response to a clotted lumen, contributing to improper continuation of therapy.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.Complaint id# (b)(4).
|