FirstAlerts

FDA Reports Class II Recall of Argon Medical Devices Catheters

The FDA published an enforcement report for a recall of 20 catheters due to potential cracking and leaking at the hub.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 20, 2026, 9:09 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 20, 2026, 9:10 a.m. ET
On August 5, 2026, FDA enforcement report records published a classification for a recall of 20 catheters manufactured by ., based in . The recall was initiated on June 15, 2026, under recall number , and FDA records list its status as . The recall affects the . The specific identifying code is REF/UDI-DI/Lot(Expiration): 384620/00886333210008/11490543(7/28/2026). According to the agency record, the catheters may experience leaking or cracking at the hub, which may lead to replacement, inability to flush or aspirate the catheter, catheter occlusion, therapy interruption, blood loss, tissue irritation, or bloodstream infection. According to official FDA definitions, a designation is used where a product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm, and where the chance of serious harm is remote. The affected product was distributed in 28 U.S. states—AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NJ, NV, NY, OR, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA—as well as Canada, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia. Agency database records show no other enforcement actions for .

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 20, 2026, 9:09 a.m. ETFirst report

    FDA Reports Class II Recall of Argon Medical Devices Catheters

    On August 5, 2026, FDA records reported an ongoing, developing recall initiated on June 15, 2026, by Argon Medical Devices, Inc., located in Athens. The recall applies to 20 units of the product L-Cath Midline S/L Catheter 20ga (3F) 1mm x 20cm, REF: 384620.

    According to FDA recall record Z-2804-2026, the impacted product carries the identifying code REF/UDI-DI/Lot(Expiration): 384620/00886333210008/11490543(7/28/2026). The catheters are indicated for short/long-term peripheral access to central venous system for the administration of fluids, medications, nutrients; and sampling. The agency report states that the devices may experience leaking and/or cracking at the hub, which may lead to replacement, inability to flush/aspirate catheter, catheter occlusion, therapy interruption, blood loss, tissue irritation, bloodstream infection.

    The agency classified the action under Class II. The FDA defines Class II as its middle category, used where the product may cause temporary or medically reversible harm, and where the chance of serious harm is remote. The affected units were distributed in the US to AR, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NJ, NV, NY, OR, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, as well as internationally to CAN, MYS, and SAU. FDA database records record no other enforcement action by this firm, which says nothing about fault in the present recall.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 13:09current

    First published.

  2. Version 120 Aug 2026, 13:24

    First published.

  3. Version 120 Aug 2026, 13:10current

    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.