FDA Closes Recall of Baxter Duo-Vent Solution Sets
The FDA has closed the Class I recall of certain Baxter solution administration sets, meaning the agency considers the recall carried out.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 26, 2026, 8:16 p.m. ET
This recall is open. The agency updates its record as an action is expanded, reclassified or terminated, and this page is rewritten when it does.
We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 26, 2026, 9:39 p.m. ET — checked 2h ago.
Earlier reports
Aug 26, 2026, 8:16 p.m. ETFirst report
Baxter Recalls Duo-Vent Solution Sets Over Air Bubble Reports
Baxter Healthcare Corporation is recalling its Duo-Vent Solution Set and Male Luer Lock Adapter (Product Code 1C8507) after receiving customer reports of air bubbles in the drip chamber and tubing when a pressure cuff is in use or when the tubing is flushed at the fully open position. The recall, initiated on June 30, 2026, affects 24,528 units distributed nationwide in the U.S., with no overseas consignees, according to the FDA enforcement report (Recall Number Z-2766-2026).
The FDA has classified the recall as Class I, its most serious category, indicating a reasonable probability that use of the product will cause serious harm or death. The affected lots are DR26C27062 (exp. 30-MAR-2028), DR26D14031 (exp. 15-Apr-2028), and DR26E13055 (exp. 14-May-2028), identified by UDI/DI 00085412014319. The recall is ongoing as of the report date of August 19, 2026.
The product is a sterile, single-use solution administration set used to transfer liquids from a fluid container to a catheter or extension line, typically sold in bulk cartons to professional healthcare entities. The FDA database records no other enforcement actions by Baxter, though this recall history does not indicate fault in this action.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 00:16current
First published.
- Version 127 Aug 2026, 00:23current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.