|
C.R. Bard, Inc. (BASD) -3006260740 PowerPort ClearVUE Slim Implantable Port, ChronoFlex, 8F; Port & Catheter, Implanted, Subcutaneous, Intravascular
|
Back to Search Results |
|
| Catalog Number |
5678300 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Adverse Event Without Identified Device or Use Problem (2993)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Rash (2033)
|
| Date of Event |
07/06/2026
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
On (b)(6) 2026, a patient underwent port placement procedure using a powerport clearvue slim.Post the procedure on (b)(6) 2026, the patient observed a rash near the neck incision and beneath the port body incision in the areas where dressing tape had been applied.The patient reported that the rash was not associated with itching, redness, drainage, or swelling.The patient applied hydrocortisone cream and believed the reaction was caused by the dressing tape.The current status of the patient is unknown.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
On (b)(6) 2026, a patient underwent a port placement procedure using a powerport clearvue slim.Post the procedure on (b)(6) 2026, the patient observed a rash near the neck incision and beneath the port body incision in the areas where dressing tape had been applied.The patient reported that the rash was not associated with itching, redness, drainage, or swelling.The patient applied hydrocortisone cream and believed the reaction was caused by the dressing tape.There was no reported patient injury.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
On (b)(6) 2026, a patient underwent a port placement procedure using a powerport clearvue slim.Post procedure on (b)(6), 2026, the patient observed a rash near the neck incision and beneath the port body incision in the areas where dressing tape had been applied.The patient reported that the rash was not associated with itching, redness, drainage, or swelling.The patient applied hydrocortisone cream and believed the reaction was caused by the dressing tape.Current status of the patient is unknown.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H11: manufacturing review: a manufacturing review was not required as this is the only complaint reported to date for this lot.Investigation summary: the physical device was not returned for evaluation.No photos were provided for review.The investigation is inconclusive for the reported rash issue as no objective evidence was provided for review.A review of sterilization records, endotoxin testing results, and bioburden data was conducted in accordance with applicable quality system and regulatory requirements, and no nonconformances or anomalies were identified.The definitive root cause could not be determined based upon available information.Labeling review: as the reported event did not allege a labeling or use related issue, a labeling review is not required.H.4.Device manufacture date: unknown.G3, h6 (method).Section a through f: the information provide by bd represents all 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.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H11: based on the clarification received, the rash is only a local reaction and should be classified as malfunction.The file was reassessed for reportability and determined to be reportable as malfunction.Manufacturing review: a manufacturing review was not required as this is the only complaint reported to date for this lot.Investigation summary: the physical device was not returned for evaluation.No photos were provided for review.The investigation is inconclusive for the reported rash issue as no objective evidence was provided for review.A review of sterilization records, endotoxin testing results, and bioburden data was conducted in accordance with applicable quality system and regulatory requirements, and no nonconformances or anomalies were identified.The definitive root cause could not be determined based upon available information.Labeling review: as the reported event did not allege a labeling or use related issue, a labeling review is not required.Section a through f: the information provide by bd represents all 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.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
H11: as the lot number for the device was provided, a review of the device history records will be performed.The sample has not been returned to the manufacturer for inspection/evaluation.Therefore, the investigation of the reported event is inconclusive.Based upon the available information, the definitive root cause for this event is unknown.The instructions for use (ifu) are adequate for the reported device/patient code(s) and provides general instructions for use, as well as warnings, precautions and potential complications associated with the device.Upon receipt of new or additional information, a follow up report will be submitted as applicable.Section a through f: the information provide by bd represents all 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.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|