| Model Number |
N/A |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Device Dislodged or Dislocated (2923)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient (2692)
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
(b)(4).The event is currently under investigation.A follow-up report will be submitted upon receipt of additional information or completion of the investigation.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
International customer reported that a double lumen turbo-ject standard power injectable picc line was implanted in a patient for an unspecified indication.The implant approach was not provided.Proper tip placement was verified by radiograph.The physician was not able to aspirate through one of the two lumens while testing the device after placement.A follow-up x-ray showed that the tip of the catheter appeared to migrate or regress cranially and abut against a vessel wall at the level of the trachea.This abutment of the device tip to the vessel prevented aspiration through the catheter tip.The picc line was exchanged during the same procedure and the tip placement confirmed by x-ray the tip extended further caudally than the initial line placement.There are no reported adverse patient consequences associated with this event.The device is not available for evaluation.The product insert that accompanies the device warns the user that "catheter tip position should be monitored by x-ray on a routine basis.Periodic lateral view x-ray is suggested to assess tip location in relation to vessel wall." the insert further cautions that "patient movement can cause catheter tip displacement." the instructions for use also advise "catheter maintenance (.) after catheter placement and prior to use, tip position and lumen patency should be confirmed by free aspiration of venous blood.If blood is not freely aspirated, catheter tip should be immediately reevaluated by physician.".
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Investigation ¿ evaluation: a review of the complaint history, device history record, instructions for use (ifu), quality control, and specifications of the device was conducted during the investigation.The complaint device was not returned; therefore, no physical examinations could be performed.However, a document based investigation evaluation was performed.There is no evidence to suggest the product was not made to specifications.A review of the device history record shows no nonconforming events which could contribute to this failure mode.It should be noted there were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Based on the information provided, no product returned and the results of our investigation, a definitive root cause could not be determined.We will continue to monitor for similar complaints.Per the quality engineering risk assessment no further action is required.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|