|
A customer contacted the ortho clinical diagnostics (ortho) technical solution center (tsc) to report a non-reproducible, higher than expected vitros troponin i es (tropi es) result was obtained from a patient sample tested on a vitros xt 7600 integrated system.Patient sample 1 result of 0.059 ng/ml vs.The expected result of <0.020 ng/ml.Biased results of the magnitude and direction observed may lead to inappropriate physician action if they were to occur undetected.The higher than expected vitros tropi es result was not reported outside of the laboratory, and there was no reported allegation of harm as a result of this event.This report corresponds to ortho clinical diagnostics inc (ortho) complaint number (b)(4) and reportability assessment 613240.
|
|
The investigation has determined that a non-reproducible, higher than expected vitros troponin i es (tropi es) result was obtained from a patient sample tested on a vitros xt 7600 integrated system.The definitive assignable cause could not be determined with the information provided.Based on historical quality control results, a reagent issue did not likely contribute to the event.However, the customer does not process a control fluid with a troponin i concentration at, or below the url.Therefore, the performance of the vitros tropi es reagent lot 6185 at, or below the url concentration of 0.034 ng/ml cannot be determined and a reagent issue could not be entirely ruled out as contributing to the event.Continual tracking and trending of complaints has not identified any signals that would point to a potential systemic issue with vitros product tropi es reagent lot 6185.No vitros tropi es diagnostic within-run precision testing was performed, therefore, an instrument performance issue cannot be ruled out as contributing to the event.Pre-analytical sample processing could not be ruled out as a contributing factor, as it was established that the customer was not following the sample collection device manufactures recommendation for sample centrifugation and cellular debris, due to poor sample preparation, was likely present in the affected sample, although this could not be confirmed.In addition, the customer sent pictures of sample 1 and the volume of plasma was aspirated down to the gel.The picture also showed incomplete separation of the gel separator, and the gel contained red blood cells.This affirms the likelihood of cellular debris being present in the affected sample.
|