|
Due to character limitation, below field are added from e.1.: event site name: (b)(6).The device has not been returned to the manufacturer so we are unable to complete an evaluation.If provided, we will send a supplemental report with our additional findings.Complaint record id # (b)(4).
|
|
Updated fields: b4, d9 (device available for eval), g3, g6, h2.H3, h4, h6 (type of investigation, investigation findings, investigation conclusions), h11.Corrected fields: d4 (unique identifier (udi) #, d10, g2, h6 (component codes).No decon or visual inspection performed since product was not returned and could not be evaluated.A cardiology fellow, melis, contacted emergency support after a nurse reported concerns about the arterial waveform and potential timing issues.Review of the provided screenshots including the printed strip and pump data showed normal inflation deflation timing and appropriate hemodynamic values.However, the augmentation was noted to be higher than expected.A chest x ray was recommended to confirm catheter placement.The x ray image revealed the catheter¿s radiopaque tip positioned at the lower end of the 4th intercostal space, indicating a low placement.The proper recommended position is between the 2nd and 3rd intercostal spaces.This information was communicated to melis, who appreciated the guidance.Product surveillance information could not be fully collected because melis was not near a computer.Since the product was not returned, we were unable to perform a device evaluation.Based on the event description, improper intra aortic balloon catheter positioning (low catheter placement at the 4th intercostal space instead of the recommended 2nd 3rd intercostal space).This malposition likely contributed to the waveform concerns and supraoptimal augmentation noted by the clinical team.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.
|