|
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: the complaint that the stylet could be easily broken was inconclusive due to the state of the sample.The complainant had indicated that the device associated with this complaint was used as part of ¿testing¿ performed at the facility.The damage observed on the returned device 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 sample.The product returned for evaluation was an opened kit for a 5fr t/l powerpicc solo catheter.No blood residue, or other evidence of patient use, was seen on any kit component.The stylet within the kit was confirmed to contain a complete break within the magnet tip.The stylet also contained bends and curves throughout the distal region.The polyimide tubing 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 wall thickness could not be measured due to the extensive damage found within the magnetic tip.The underlying shrink tubing contained one break, underneath the polyimide layer, which was consistent with tensile/pulling damage.Separation of magnets was seen in a total of six regions with deformation of the shrink tubing within the separation void.Material necking of the polyimide also existed in the same region and both of these observations were consistent with tensile/pulling damage.Tubing wall thickness appeared relatively uniform, but a measurement was not possible due to the damage seen within the region.Evaluation of the stylet wire, wire mandrel, and mandrel sleeve was unremarkable.It could not be determined from the returned device if the stylet was more susceptible to tip breakage as no evidence was observed to support that and the intentionally damaged state of the device prohibited further testing.A lot history review (lhr) of redx2449 showed one other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.The complaints for this lot number (redx2449) have been reported from the same facility in canada.
|