| Model Number |
N/A |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Foreign Body In Patient (2687)
|
| Date of Event |
10/22/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
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 manufacturer has received the sample and will be evaluated.A supplemental will be submitted with evaluation results.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that a catheter was selected for insertion into the right basilic vein.The vein was visualized under ultrasound and accessed successfully.The guidewire advanced without difficulty.However, while advancing the catheter over the needle and guidewire, the patient suddenly flexed both arms forcefully inward.The clinician decided to abort the procedure in response to the abrupt motion.Upon withdrawal, it was noted that the catheter had fractured, leaving a fragment of approximately 3 cm in patient.Catheter fragment retained in patient's arm.Vascular surgery was consulted following catheter fracture.At the time of the consult, it was reported to our team that the surgeon did not recommend immediate removal.Complainant cannot say whether the catheter was ultimately removed.Alternative vascular access was established.
|
| |
|
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 catheter break is confirmed but the root cause could not be determined.One photograph of two powerglide pro catheters was returned for evaluation.Inspection of the photograph found that one of the catheters (unit 01) was shorter than the other (unit 02).The distal end of the catheter tubing of unit 01 was deformed, indicating that this was the break site.However, no features of the break could be discerned based on the photo.Unit 02 appeared to have no damage, suggesting that it was placed next to the first unit for the purpose of comparison.Based on the available material for review, the complaint is confirmed but there is insufficient evidence to identify the root cause.This complaint will be recorded for future trending and monitoring purposes.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|