|
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 and lot history, applicable previous investigation(s), labeling, applicable manufacture records, and applicable fmea documents.Based on a review of this information, the following was concluded: this report addresses sample 1.The complaint that the stylet could be easily broken was inconclusive due to the state of the samples.The complainant had indicated that the devices associated with this complaint was used as part of ¿testing¿ performed at the facility.The damage observed on the returned devices was consistent with intentional kinking and pulling on the stylet tip and no formal testing could be performed due to the damaged state of the samples.The product returned for evaluation was two opened kits for 4fr s/l powerpicc catheters.No blood residue, or other evidence of patient use, was seen on any kit component.One of the two stylets within the kits was confirmed to contain a complete break within the magnet tip region (labeled sample 2); the other stylet contained a kink within the magnetic tip but was not broken (labeled sample 1).The broken tip of sample 2 was not returned for evaluation.The polyimide tubing of both stylets was inspected for evidence of damage, defect, or deformity, which may have existed prior to the facility ¿testing¿ the device and none was found.The stylet of sample 1 had been pulled through the t-lock assembly and microscopic examination of the kink region found breakage of the inner shrink tubing with broken magnets in the same region.Evaluation of sample 2 showed kinks at every magnet interface with breakage of the shrink tubing, and material necking of the polyimide tube, at two of those sites.The tubing wall thickness of sample 1 was measured to be below specification by 0.0001¿ in one region outside of the damage zones.Wall thickness of sample 2 could not be measured due to the damaged state of the piece and wall thickness within the regions of damage could not be measured as the damage prohibited an accurate measurement.No test data was available to indicate that the degree by which the wall thickness was found to be below specification would contribute to the perception observed by the facility that the stylet was more brittle than previously known.A review of quality inspection records for the polyimide tubing used during production found that tubing measurements were within specification.Additionally, the wall thickness of the tls stylet sample implicated in the original event was within specification, reference fda report 3006260740-2020-00705.The damaged state of the devices made independent assessment of the affect impossible and the described facility testing in this, and similar fda report 3006260740-2020-00705, suggested a use condition both outside of design criteria and intended use as described within the product ifu.A lot history review (lhr) of redw3820 showed one other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.The complaints for this lot number (redw3820) have been reported from the same facility in canada.
|