|
H11:section a through f - the information provided by bd 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 bd.The following were reviewed as part of this investigation: patient severity, applicable previous investigation(s), sample analysis, applicable fmea documents, applicable manufacturing records, and labeling.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of a separation of the hub from the extension leg tubing was confirmed and the damage appeared to be associated with use of the device.One 5fr triple-lumen (t/l) powerpicc solo was returned for investigation.The catheter exhibited evidence of use.A dry red colored residue was observed on the catheter.The t/l tubing and the power injectable extension leg tubing were each received in two segments.The printing on the extension leg was elongated and worn.The distal segment of the power injectable tubing extended 0.25¿ from the proximal end of the molded trifurcation.The proximal segment was 5.0¿ and a knot was observed in the tubing 1.0¿ from the proximal end of the extension leg.The length of the extension set tubing and the length of the printed working on the tubing was beyond the specification length, which confirms that the tubing was stretched.It appeared that the proximal end of the extension leg completely separated from the solo hub without breaking.The solo hub for the power injectable lumen was not returned for investigation.Due to the characteristics of the returned sample and plastic deformation of the extension set tubing, it appeared that the damage was a result of significant tensile stress during use.No damaged associated with the manufacturing process was observed on the returned sample.A lot history review (lhr) of reds0262 showed no other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.
|