The plant investigation is in process.A supplemental mdr will be submitted upon completion of this activity.Clinical investigation: a temporal association exists between the adverse events of the patient¿s increasing shortness of breath, becoming diaphoretic, blood loss, and the need for hospitalization and the 2008t hemodialysis (hd) machine, combi-set blood line, and optiflux 180nre dialyzer.However, the patient was conscious upon transfer of care from the clinic to ems.At some point during the transport to the er, the patient became unresponsive and hypertensive.Reportedly, the patient was placed on a nitroglycerine drip which caused a severe hypotensive episode requiring intubation.The patient was treated in the er and admitted to the icu where a complex sequence of events occurred including the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome and two instances of cardiac arrest with successful resuscitation.The patient was eventually made a ¿do not resuscitate¿ (dnr) and expired on (b)(6) 2017.It is unknown to what extent the hd treatment with the 2008t hd machine, combi-set blood line and optiflux 180nre dialyzer on (b)(6) 2017 contributed to the patient¿s decline and eventual demise as a death certificate or esrd death notification was not received.Although radiological testing provided no evidence of an embolism, per the report the possibility of the body could have absorbed any evidence of an embolism prior to testing does exist.The 2008t hd machine alarmed appropriately and as expected for the reported air leak.After the event, the machine was evaluated by the biomedical technician and found to be functioning appropriately and was returned to service.
|
It was reported that a fresenius 2008t hemodialysis (hd) machine had alarmed for air detector and venous pressure within two minutes after the initiation of a patient¿s hd treatment on (b)(6) 2017.The patient became short of breath with wheezing and was given oxygen.At this time, treatment was interrupted, and small air bubbles were noted from the dialyzer and into the venous bloodline.The patient was re-set up with new supplies and resumed treatment on the same machine.After ten minutes, the patient had worsening shortness of breath and became diaphoretic.Following this, treatment was terminated, and the patient¿s blood was not returned.The estimated blood loss was 150ml.The patient was transported to the hospital via ambulance.While in the ambulance, the patient reportedly lost consciousness, was foaming at the mouth, and the patient¿s blood pressure was 300/180.The patient went into respiratory distress and was given a nitroglycerin drip.The ambulance technician reportedly spoke with the patient's doctor and it was suspected the patient had a possible air embolism.When the patient arrived at the emergency response (er) in the hospital, the patient was under stroke alert.The patient was intubated and had altered mental status due to hypertensive crisis.In the er, the patient received head and chest ct scans which revealed no acute intracranial findings and no findings to suggest acute pulmonary embolism or air embolism.However, the chest ct scan confirmed bilateral basilar consolidations with interstitial infiltrates.The patient¿s chest x-ray was also suggestive of congestive heart failure with pulmonary edema.The patient was subsequently admitted to the hospital on (b)(6) 2017 for acute hypoxemic and hypercapneic respiratory failure after intubation, pulmonary edema, hypertensive emergency, and acute toxic encephalopathy.After two days of being hospitalized, the patient was noted to be having worsening leukocytosis and developed acute respiratory distress syndrome.The patient had multiple episodes of being thrown and ventilated to improve oxygenation.The patient developed atrial flutter that was resistant to amiodarone infusion.On (b)(6) 2017, the patient underwent a cardioversion.While in the hospital, the patient had multiple hd treatments using a fresenius machine and all of fresenius products.There is currently no known issue with any hd treatments while hospitalized and no allegation of any defect or malfunction caused or contribute to the patient death.The patient¿s final diagnoses were acute respiratory distress syndrome with acute hypoxemic and hypercapnic respiratory failure, status post cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, septic shock, transaminitis secondary to shock liver, gastrointestinal bleeding, end stage renal disease on hd, hypertensive emergency, acute toxic encephalopathy with concerns of anoxic brain injury, elevated troponins, most likely secondary to acute coronary syndrome, leukocytosis, and diabetes mellitus.The patient¿s neurological status never significantly improved after he was coded for cardiac arrest two times.The patient was eventually made do not resuscitate and expired (b)(6) 2017.It was reported that the 2008t hd machine in use at the time of the treatment had passed all self-tests prior to use.The machine was removed from service following the event for an evaluation by the facility¿s on-site biomedical technician (biomed).The biomed verified machine operations and did not make any repairs.The machine was returned to service at the user facility without issue.No defect or malfunction of any fresenius product in use during the hd treatment was observed or identified.No disposable devices are available to be returned to the manufacturing plant for physical evaluation as all products used for the patient¿s treatment on (b)(6) 2017 have been discarded.
|
Date received 12/20/2017.Follow-up #2 plant investigation: no parts were returned to the manufacturer for physical evaluation.Additionally, no on-site evaluation of the unit was performed by a fresenius regional equipment specialist (res).The unit was pulled from service for evaluation by the facility biomedical engineer (biomed) following the event.The machine did not require any repairs and was confirmed to be 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 related to 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.The investigation into the cause of the patient incident was not able to confirm a device issue which would have resulted in the adverse event.A definitive conclusion regarding the complaint incident cannot be reached without a physical examination of the complaint device.
|