A biomedical technician at the user facility reported that a saline bag backfill occurred following the initiation of a patient's hemodialysis (hd) treatment on a 2008k2 hd machine.
Reportedly, the staff had replaced the saline bag at the start of treatment, and subsequently noticed that the saline bag backfilled.
The treatment was stopped, the saline bag was replaced, and then the blood within the extracorporeal circuit was returned to the patient; no blood was lost.
The patient was moved to a different machine, and then the treatment was continued and successfully completed with no further issues.
No patient adverse effects were experienced and no medical intervention was required as a result of this event.
Follow-up was provided which revealed that the cbe upgrade was previously performed on this unit.
Following the event, the system was removed from service for evaluation.
The biomed replaced the air separator, valve 43, and a sensor to resolve the issue.
Functional testing performed by the biomed confirmed the system was operating properly.
The unit has been returned to service at the user facility without a recurrence of the event as reported.
No parts were available to be returned to the manufacturer for evaluation as all replaced components were discarded by the user facility.
|
The device was not returned to the manufacturer for physical evaluation.
Additionally, no on-site evaluation of the unit was performed by a fresenius regional equipment specialist (res) and no parts were returned for failure analysis.
The biomedical engineer indicated that the air separator, valve 43, and a sensor were replaced to resolve the issue.
Functional testing performed by the biomed confirmed the system was operating properly.
The unit has been returned to service at the user facility without a recurrence of the event as reported.
A records review was performed on the reported serial number.
An investigation of the device manufacturing records was conducted by the manufacturer.
There were no non-conformances or any associated rework during the manufacturing process which could be associated with the reported event.
In addition, the device history record (dhr) review confirmed the results of the in-progress and final quality control (qc) testing met all requirements.
A definitive conclusion regarding the complaint incident cannot be reached without a physical examination of the complaint device.
|