Nouvelle déclaration d'incident
No de la demande: 2011-2958
Numéro de référence du titulaire d'homologation: PROSAR Case # 1-26621657
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: OHIO
ARLA No d'homologation ARLA No de la demande d'homologation EPA No d'homologation. 2596-62
Nom du produit: Hartz in control 5 month flea and tick collar
Autre (préciser)
collarOui
Inconnu
Site: Animal / Usage sur un animal domestique
Inconnu
Professionnel de la santé
Dog / Chien
Bulldog
1
Homme
0.23
14
lbs
Cutanée
Unknown / Inconnu
>1 wk <=1 mo / > 1 sem < = 1 mois
Système
Persisted until death
Oui
Oui
Inconnu
Mort
Treatment / Traitement
(p.ex. description des symptômes tels que la fréquence et la gravité
1-26621657- The reporter, a veterinarian, indicates a patient may have been exposed to a product containing the active ingredient tetrachlorvinphos. The reporter indicated a twelve week fourteen pound male bulldog had presented to him for an elective ophthalmic procedure. The dog was asymptomatic on presentation but within 45 minutes of presentation the animal developed respiratory distress, seizures, twitching, hypersalivation, vomiting, and diarrhea leading to rectal prolapse, pulmonary edema, pin point pupils and respiratory distress. The reporter indicates the pet owner had placed the product, a flea and tick collar, six days prior to the animal¿s presentation. The caller had initiated manual CPR and administered diazepam, atropine, and the animal was intubated. The reporter indicated within the past hour the animal had coughed up phlegm, began breathing o its own and remained semi conscious and tachypnic. The caller was advised the symptoms seen would be unexpected following use as labeled. He was advised to seek other etiology. The caller was advised of care that may be offered following inappropriate use or ingestion, and offered a prognosis. On follow up the next day the veterinarian indicated the animal¿s status was unchanged. He had continued supportive care but had not looked into other potential causes for the animal¿s illness. The pet owners had concerns about cost of care and were considering euthanasia. New and additional signs seen included generalized hives for which the veterinarian had administered diphenhydramine. It was reiterated to the caller to seek other diagnosis. He was supplied with submission information for registrant supported cholinesterase testing and for registrant supported necropsy. On yet one additional call back the veterinarian had stated the animal had died two days following his initial report. It was unclear if the practitioner would submit the animal for necropsy or cholinesterase test samples. No further information is available.
Mort