FDA Closes AVID Medical Recall of Kits Containing Medline Manifolds
The agency has closed the recall action, confirming the correction is complete, and repeats the identifying codes for any remaining affected kits.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 31, 2026, 10:15 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 31, 2026, 10:39 p.m. ET — checked 53 min ago.
Earlier reports
Aug 31, 2026, 10:15 p.m. ETFirst report
FDA Classifies AVID Medical Kit Correction as Most Serious Type
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has classified a correction by AVID Medical as the most serious type of recall, according to a notice published on fda.gov. The correction involves convenience kits containing Medline manifolds, identified by codes including 512628, EAMC1000-0510, and 809160377314. The notice lists nine codes in total; the remaining codes are available in the FDA notice.
Medline identified the presence of particulate within the fluid path of the manifolds, prompting the correction. As of June 30, AVID Medical has not reported any serious injuries or deaths associated with this issue, the FDA reported.
The FDA states the remedy is to identify and quarantine affected kits and add warning labels to ensure affected manifolds are not used. The status of the correction is ongoing.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 02:15current
First published.
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 02:23current
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.