Baxter International Recalls IV Solutions
Baxter International is recalling several intravenous solutions, according to the FDA.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 26, 2026, 8:16 a.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 26, 2026, 8:22 a.m. ET
Baxter Expands Recall of 70% Dextrose Injection Over Stainless Steel Particles
Baxter International has expanded its recall of 70% Dextrose Injection, USP in 2000 mL VIAFLEX plastic containers, sold as a pharmacy bulk package, due to the presence of stainless steel particles in the solution, according to a report from Medical Daily. The recall now includes additional lots distributed in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.
The particles can block and clot blood vessels, cut off blood flow to vital organs, lead to a life-threatening pulmonary embolism, and cause permanent organ damage or death, Medical Daily reported. Baxter says it has received no reports of adverse events connected to the issue.
The company is instructing healthcare providers to contact their patients directly and tell them to stop using those solutions and replace them.
Aug 26, 2026, 8:16 a.m. ETFirst report
Baxter Recalls 70% Dextrose Injection Over Stainless Steel Particles
Baxter International is recalling 70% Dextrose Injection, USP in 2000 mL VIAFLEX plastic containers, sold as a pharmacy bulk package, because stainless steel particles were found in the solution, according to a report from Medical Daily. The recall affects product distributed in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.
The FDA reported the recall, and Baxter says it has received no reports of adverse events connected to the issue. Particulate matter in an intravenous solution can block and clot blood vessels, cut off blood flow to vital organs, lead to a life-threatening pulmonary embolism, and cause permanent organ damage or death, according to Medical Daily.
Baxter is advising customers to contact their patients directly and tell them to stop using those solutions and replace them.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 229 Aug 2026, 00:23current
Removed direct instruction to readers to stop using products; now reports the remedy as instructions given to Baxter. Removed 'life-threatening' from hazard descriptions; now reports the hazard without that term, as the classification is unstated.
- Version 126 Aug 2026, 12:22current
First published.
- Version 126 Aug 2026, 12:16current
First published.
- Version 126 Aug 2026, 12:21
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.