FDA Reports Injuries in Avid Medical IV Start Kit Fungal Contamination Issue
The FDA says Avid Medical has reported injuries associated with the fungal contamination issue affecting certain convenience kits.
3 reports on this incident · first at Aug 31, 2026, 10:39 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 31, 2026, 10:53 p.m. ET
FDA Closes Recall Action on Avid Medical IV Start Kits Over Fungal Contamination
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has closed its recall action on certain Avid Medical IV Start Kits, meaning the agency considers the recall carried out. The action, first announced in an early alert, concerns convenience kits containing recalled BD ChloraPrep applicators that may be contaminated with Aspergillus penicillioides under certain environmental conditions.
Affected products are identified as AVID KIT KRIV26-02, with codes 1658437 and 10809160460481. As of August 20, Avid Medical had not reported any serious injuries or deaths associated with the issue, according to the FDA.
The FDA advises anyone still holding affected kits to review inventory, quarantine, and destroy the entire kit after completing response forms.
Aug 31, 2026, 10:39 p.m. ETFirst report
FDA Issues Early Alert on Avid Medical IV Start Kits Over Fungal Contamination Risk
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued an early alert regarding certain IV start kits distributed by Avid Medical, citing a risk of fungal contamination. According to the FDA, the kits may allow the growth of Aspergillus penicillioides under certain environmental conditions. The affected products are identified as AVID KIT KRIV26-02, with codes 1658437 and 10809160460481, described as "IV START KIT NON-STERILE, KIT."
The FDA states that the issue involves convenience kits containing recalled BD ChloraPrep applicators, which should be removed from use. As of August 20, Avid Medical has not reported any serious injuries or deaths associated with this issue, according to the FDA. The agency advises healthcare providers to review inventory for affected convenience kits, quarantine them, and destroy the entire kit after completing response forms. The status of the alert is ongoing.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 02:39current
First published.
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 03:23current
First published.
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 02:53current
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.