Manufacturing review: as the lot number for the device was not provided, a manufacturing review could not be performed.Investigation summary: the device was not returned for evaluation.Images and medical records were not provided for review.Therefore, the investigation is inconclusive as no objective evidence has been provided to confirm any alleged deficiency with the device.Based upon the available information, the definitive root cause is unknown.Labeling review: a review of product labeling documents (e.G.Procedural instructions, indications, warnings, precautions, cautions, possible complications, contraindications, and unit label) showed that the product labeling is adequate.The information provided by bard represents all of the known information at this time.Despite good faith efforts to obtain additional information, the complainant / reporter was unable or unwilling to provide any further patient, product, or procedural details to bard.
|
It was reported through the results of a clinical trial, that approximately eleven months post placement of a left upper arm vascular graft, the patient was admitted to the hospital for thrombosis of vascular access.Reportedly, the patient underwent a thrombectomy procedure, the graft re-thrombosed and a second thrombectomy was performed; the patient discharged on hospital day two.
|