|
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, complaint history review, applicable previous investigation(s), sample evaluation, applicable fmea documents, and labeling.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: the complaint of a break in the extension tubing was confirmed but the exact cause was not determined.The product returned for evaluation was a 22ga x 3/4¿ bard winged infusion set (with y-site).The sample contained usage residue throughout and a complete break in the extension tubing was confirmed at the proximal edge of the y-site connector of the side-tail extension.Microscopic examination of the break site revealed a very rough, granular, and topographically complex feature set with patterned stepping within the break site.Insufficient evidence was observed to determine the exact cause of the break.It is possible that tensile and/or torsional stresses caused the tear to develop during use; however, there was inadequate evidence to confirm it as such.A lot history review (lhr) review is not possible, as no manufacturing lot number has been provided by the complainant.
|