Investigation completed 07/21/2017.Four devices were received on 7/12/17.The devices received were of lot 1170009.The devices were not in their original packages; one of them still had a catheter attached to it; also, two (2) loose (not attached to any of the devices) transducers were included in the package.The devices were inspected and as stated on the medwatch no cracks or any other observable defect was noticed.The systems were purged with water to see if there were any leaks: none were found.Stopcocks were aligned leaving an open path all the way to the patient line¿s stopcock (proximal) to see if water would backflow in the system: no air was drawn into the system.The air would only get in the system if one (1) of the two (2) stopcocks (patient line or zero reference) was opened.In that case air, would get into the system from the chamber as described in the medwatch.The application ¿bilateral subdural evacuation¿ is an off-label application of these devices.According to the complaint, the device was ¿leveled at the eam at (-)20cm h2o¿.The pressure scale provided with the device is from -5 to +30cm h2o; therefore, not totally clear how it was set to -20 cm h2o.As per ifu the indicated use is in the ¿ventricles of the brain¿ or ¿lumbar subarachnoid space¿: ¿indications: draining and monitoring of cerebrospinal fluid (csf) flow from the ventricles of the brain or lumbar subarachnoid space is indicated in selected patients to: ¿ reduce intracranial pressure (icp).¿ monitor intracranial pressure (icp).¿ monitor cerebrospinal fluid (csf).¿ provide temporary csf drainage.¿ no unusual event related to the reported failure was noticed during the lot records review.The lot complied with all release criteria including functional tests such as leakage, occlusion, and pull tests.Nothing abnormal was noticed in the returned samples failure analysis.Thus far, only the (b)(6) hospital has complained regarding this issue.(b)(4) and no complaint has been reported against it from any of the other facilities.Ins-8401 and ins-8400 are visually almost identical except that ins-8401 has an anti-reflux valve on the patient line which prevents csf return when there are changes in the patient¿s condition (for example: icp changes, device height, etc.¿ in this case the complaint description mentions that ¿when he raised the drain even slightly the air moved rapidly towards the patient.¿).Thus, it may be concluded that personnel may have not been completely familiarized with the device and that it may behave differently to ins-8401.The customer did not report any leaks in the system and none was observed during the verification of the returned samples.Therefore, it seems that the system behaved as it normally does, but not as the customer expected.This most likely explains why only the ins-8400 units (lot 1170009) seemed to cause the situation.
|