|
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 that the depth markings appeared faded was confirmed; however, the exact cause could not be determined.One photograph of a catheter segment was provided for investigation.The physical sample, which resembled the item in the photo, was subsequently returned for investigation.The returned sample, which was 13.5cm in length, showed the 43 and 44 cm depth markers to be faintly visible.A portion of the 45cm and 47cm depth markers appeared partially faded.The printing of the 53 and 54 cm depth markers was incomplete but was legible.It is unknown if the printing was affected from handling or use.Even if the marks are faded or incomplete, as long as the marks and/or characters are legible, they are acceptable.The manufacturing facility was notified of the complaint.Reynosa evaluation: complaint due to ¿measurement markings were faded or absent¿ was confirmed but the exact cause is unknown.According with the photo evaluation performed at reynosa facility and gross visual evaluation performed at vad lab the following was concluded: the picc catheter segment was found to be illegible in some dot marks.Damage during the manufacturing process may be a potential root cause/contributor to the observed printing issue.However, no findings from the dhr review indicated a manufacturing/processing related event.Possible contributions factors: risks of damage during packaging, storage conditions, clinical procedure, handling during catheter placement taking in consideration the condition of the received sample, etc.Were considered.Therefore, as the definitive root cause of this damage could not be determined the cause of this condition remains unknown.A lot history review (lhr) of redr0331 showed no other similar product complaint(s) from this lot number.
|