The cause for the discordant afp results is unknown.
Siemens healthcare diagnostics is investigating.
The ifu states in the warning section: "warning: the concentration of afp in a given specimen, as determined by assays from different manufacturers, can vary due to differences in assay methods and reagent specificity.
The results reported by the laboratory to the physician must include the identity of the afp assay used.
Values obtained with different afp assay methods cannot be used interchangeably.
Before changing assay methods, the laboratory must do the following: for prenatal testing, the laboratory must establish a range of normal values for the new assay based on normal serum and amniotic fluid from pregnant women with a confirmed gestational age.
For cancer management, the laboratory must perform additional testing to confirm baseline values for patients being serially monitored.
United states federal law restricts this device to sale and distribution by or on the order of a physician, or to a clinical laboratory; and use is restricted to, by, or on the order of a physician.
Use afp results only as part of the overall clinical evaluation of a patient.
Do not use afp results as the only criterion for diagnosis.
" the ifu states in the interpretation of results section: "results of this assay should always be interpreted in conjunction with patient's medical history, clinical presentation and other findings.
".
|
Siemens filed the initial mdr 1219913-2019-00019 on 02/08/2019.
03/08/2019 additional information: for section e4 of the initial mdr report, the answer received is "no".
The quality control (qc) and calibrations were within range at the time of the event.
Service was not sent for the instrument because no other test issue was reported.
The qc for all the other tests were acceptable for the customer.
Based on limited information currently available in the complaint, siemens cannot evaluate any service intervention for probable cause of the questionable patient sample result.
Siemens has made multiple attempts to gather information for an issue that occurred approximately six months prior without regional response.
It could not be ruled out that a preanalytical sample variable contributed to the questionable initially high patient sample result.
Since the issue was related to a singular patient sample result there is no indication that an instrument mechanical failure contributed to the questionable result.
The instrument is performing within specifications.
No further evaluation of the device is required.
|