|
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 hf 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, curves, and two kinks 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.A segment of polyimide tubing, 4.2cm proximal of the wire mandrel, was not returned for evaluation.Breaks in magnets were seen which coincided with kink/bend regions.Tubing wall thickness was measured to be within specification.Evaluation of the stylet wire and wire mandrel was unremarkable.The mandrel sleeve was missing, which likely occurred as a result of the stylet break as the break occurred in the same region.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 redw1236 showed no other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.
|