Nouvelle déclaration d'incident
No de la demande: 2010-5676
Numéro de référence du titulaire d'homologation: PROSAR Case # 1-23897261
Nom du titulaire (nom légal complet, aucune abbréviation): The Hartz Mountain Corporation
Adresse: 400 Plaza Drive
Ville: Secaucus
État: New Jersey
Pays: USA
Code postal /Zip: 07094-3688
Incident chez un animal domestique
Pays: UNITED STATES
État: ALABAMA
ARLA No d'homologation ARLA No de la demande d'homologation EPA No d'homologation. 2596-140
Nom du produit: UltraGuard Plus Flea Tick Spray for Cats
Liquide
Oui
Inconnu
Site: Animal / Usage sur un animal domestique
Inconnu
Propriétaire de l'animal
Cat / Chat
Domestic shorthair
1
Homme
0.6
5
lbs
Cutanée
Unknown / Inconnu
>8 hrs <=24 hrs / > 8 h < = 24 h
Système
Persisted until death
Non
Non
Mort
Treatment / Traitement
(p.ex. description des symptômes tels que la fréquence et la gravité
1-23897261- The reporter, a pet owner, indicates exposure of her animal to an insecticide containing the active ingredient tetrachlorvinphos and methoprene. The caller reported she applied the product (a topical flea and tick spray for cats) to her eight month five pound male domestic shorthair cat every one to two weeks and most recently the night prior to the initial contact with the registrant. The caller indicated at the time of the call the animal was vocalizing ¿¿¿like it was in pain?, seemed lethargic, seemed unable to use the liter box, and had urinated on himself. The caller was advised the signs seen were not expected following routine use of the product according to the label. The caller was advised to wash the animal in a noninsecticidal shampoo and seek veterinary assistance. The caller was further advised the animals signs were consistent with a very common urinary disorder in young male cats that could be potentially life threatening. The reporter spontaneously called back two hours later to indicate the animal had now developed incoordination, weakness, drooling, muscle fasciculations, dilated pupils, and difficulty walking. The animal had not yet seen the veterinarian. The caller was advised to bring the animal to the veterinarian. On routine follow-up one day later the reporter informed he registrant the animal had died. The animal had presented to the veterinarian ¿¿¿too late? to offer effective treatment. The caller added the signs seen in the animal of hiding and limp listless behavior prior to its death. The caller was advised of registrant supported necropsy, but had buried the animal. The registrant was advised a family member would exhume the animal, but no further contact was initiated by the reporter regarding the details of the program. No further information is available.
Mort