|
A user facility registered nurse (rn) reported that an internal dialyzer blood leak occurred approximately twenty minutes into a patient¿s hemodialysis (hd) treatment.The blood leak was visually observed on the dialysate side of the dialyzer.There was no damage identified on the dialyzer.The machine, a gambro phoenix, alarmed with a blood leak.Blood leak test strips were used and they tested positive for the presence of blood.The patient¿s estimated blood loss (ebl) was approximately 250 ml.The rn confirmed there was no patient injury, no adverse effects were experienced, and no medical intervention was required as a result of the event.The patient completed their treatment after being re-setup with new supplies on a different machine.The complaint device was reportedly available to be sent back to the manufacturer for a physical evaluation.
|
|
Additional information: d10, h3 plant investigation: the complaint device was returned to the manufacturer for physical evaluation.The corporate provided blood port caps and adapter caps were returned attached to the dialyzer.The fibers were wet with indication of blood exposure; blood was noted throughout the dialyzer.In addition, coagulated blood was present within the header cap on the cavity id end of the dialyzer.The returned sample was subjected to a laboratory bubble point test.Internal leaks were detected in the form of a steady stream of bubbles emanating from the cavity id end potting cut surface located from approximately 5 degrees to 170 degrees, with the dialysate ports situated at 0 degrees.The dialyzer was subjected to destructive disassembly for further visual examination.Multiple potted fiber fragments and broken fibers were identified throughout the cavity id end of the dialyzer.The opposing ends of all fibers could not be isolated due to the quantity of broken fibers.Further examination of the fiber bundle did not identify any damage or irregularities, aside from the damaged fibers.The inferior surface of both polyurethane potting ends were examined for voids; no voids were noted.A production records review was performed on the reported lot.An investigation of the device history records (dhr) was then conducted by the manufacturer.There were multiple approved temporary deviation notices reported on the lot which were unrelated to the complaint event.There was no indication of product nonacceptance, deviation, non-conformance, rework, labeling or process control failure during the manufacturing process which could be associated with the reported event.The lot met all release criteria.The investigation into the complaint was able to confirm the reported event.
|