Additional Manufacturer Narrative · 1
(B)(4). EVAL METHOD: DEVICE HISTORY REVIEWED. RESULTS: DEVICE HISTORY REVIEW FOUND THE PRODUCT MET SPECIFICATIONS WHEN RELEASED FOR DISTRIBUTION. CONCLUSION: CAUSE OF EVENT CANNOT BE DETERMINED. ANALYSIS: NO PRODUCT WAS RETURNED FOR ANALYSIS. ANALYSIS WAS LIMITED TO DEVICE HISTORY REVIEW. REVIEW OF MFG RECORDS FOR THIS PRODUCT DID NOT REVEAL ANY ABNORMALITIES OR NON-CONFORMANCES. CONCLUSION: THE INFO OBTAINED RELATED TO THIS EVENT SEEMS UNCLEAR. APPARENTLY THIS EVENT HAPPENED IN THE PEDIATRIC INTENSIVE CARE UNIT BY THE ECMO TEAM. BASED ON THE AVAILABLE INFO IT IS POSSIBLE THE DEVICE WAS USED FOR A PURPOSE BEYOND ITS INTENDED USE (INSERTED INTO OPEN VESSEL, ETC), THE PRODUCT WAS NOT USED PROPERLY, OR THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING/MISCOMMUNICATION OF THE EVENT. BASED ON THE HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE OF THIS PRODUCT, IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO INSERT THE STRAIGHTENER INTO A PT AND THEN LOSE THE GUIDEWIRE USED DURING THE PROCEDURE WITHIN THE PT. IN CONCLUSION: A CAUSE FOR THIS EVENT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED.