We have not received the patch for evaluation since the patch remains implanted in the patient.Hence, we could not conclusively determine the root cause of the defect.We were notified about this incident through fda ( report no.Mw5073648 ) on (b)(6) 2017 along with other three incidents ( report no.Mw5073649, mw5073661 and mw5073662 ) that occured at this same hospital.After following-up with the hospital, we learned that the culture report was positive for (b)(6) growth.Ct scan on (b)(6) 2017 showed indurated soft tissue thickening at the site without fluid collection.(b)(6) is known to be highly susceptible to destruction from our 0.2% glutaraldehyde storage solution.Further, our studies have shown that the hardest to sterilize/remove bacteria for our process are the bacillus and clostridium strain for which we have conducted extensive validation work to prove effectiveness of the sterilization process.Our review of the sterilization information for these lots found no abnormalities that would suggest a failure of the process.These facts indicate that these strains could not survive through our sterilization process or storage in the storage solution and indicates that the source of infection is some other cause.(b)(6) is carried by about 2% of the population although most of them aren't infected ( https://www.Cdc.Gov/mrsa/healthcare/index.Htlml).It is possible that the patient got infected with (b)(6) when the surgical wounds were in contact with someone or some surgical instruments during the surgery with exposed (b)(6).We also discovered that it was the same doctor who had performed all four of the patch angioplasty.Doctor do not believe that the patch contributed to the incident.The review of lots history records did not reveal any discrepancies related to the complaint events either during the manufacturing or packaging processes for this lot and had passed all required tests.We have also not received any other complaints from other customers for devices from this lot.Please note that we have also submitted manufacturer report numbers: (b)(4), (b)(4) and (b)(4) for the report no.Mw5073649, mw5073661 and mw5073662, respectively for the other three cases of the infection that occured at the same hospital.Infections can occur in any wound recognizing however that this is a very infrequent occurence for carotid artery surgery.The rate of occurrence for these kinds of incidents has remained very low (0.001%).The fact that the organisms differ in each of the specimens in each cases also indicates that the infection was from an external source or carrier.While the root cause(s) of this incident remains inconclusive, we do believe that it is highly unlikely that the xenosure patch contributed to the incident.
|