|
The following fields have been updated with corrected and/or additional information:
d.4.Medical device lot: 6056731
d.4.Medical device expiration date: 08/28/2027
d.4.Unique identifier (udi) #: (b)(4).H.4.Device manufacture date: 03/02/2026
investigation summary:
introduction:
the complaint investigation for two events of suspected vibrio false positive results when using the bd max¿ extended enteric bacterial panel (xebp) assay (ref.(b)(4) kit lots 6013174 and 6056731 was performed by the review of manufacturing records, review of customer¿s data and by the complaint¿s history review.Batch history review:
the review of quality control records of bd max¿ extended enteric bacterial panel kit lots 6013174 and 6056731 revealed no anomalies that could explain the customer¿s discrepant results.Investigational testing:
the customer provided a pdf document listing all the vibrio positive results obtained since (b)(6) 2026 and two run files (run_240_2026-06-18_095339 and run_252_2026-06-17_180857) from bd max¿ instrument ct1554 for investigation.Analysis of the provided runs identified a vibrio-positive result in run #240 (position a5) using kit lot 6013174, and another vibrio-positive result in run #252 (position a4).Manual curve adjudication revealed late and low amplification curves in the rox channel (bot cartridge position) without any anomaly.The internal control amplification curves show no anomaly, suggesting no sample-related inhibition.Nevertheless, manual curve adjudication has limitations; visual examination of pcr curves for low signal is a conservative assessment of the data.The pdf provided by the customer indicated that several vibrio-positive samples showed late ct values, supporting the possibility of bacterial loads near the assay limit of detection.There is no indication of a reagent issue based on the analysis of the complaints received for discrepant results on bd max xebp assay lots 6013174 and 6056731.Conclusion:
the root cause was not identified.However, based on the investigation, specimens containing non-viable bacterial dna or bacterial load at or near the assay limit of detection (lod), or environmental or cross contamination, are the most likely causes to explain the customer¿s discrepant results.Bd cannot confirm the complaint based on the investigation that was performed.Bd did not initiate a corrective and preventive action since no new hazard was identified.
|