FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety Alerts

Medline Recalls SubG Endotracheal Tubes Over Detaching, Tearing Components

The FDA notice, dated May 31, 2024, covers 6 tubes and 10 kits distributed in the United States, El Salvador and the United Arab Emirates.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Dec 20, 2023, 12:00 a.m. ETWritten Aug 7, 2026, 8:09 p.m. ET
has recalled SubG Endotracheal Tubes with Subglottic Suction and kits containing the devices, according to a notice published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FDA notice lists the recall as initiated on February 20, 2024, with a report date of May 31, 2024. The recall is a developing matter and further details may emerge. The FDA notice gives the quantity as , distributed within the United States, El Salvador and the United Arab Emirates, under the Medline brand name. According to the FDA notice, . The notice states that . , according to the FDA notice. Consumers who have a SubG Endotracheal Tube with Subglottic Suction should stop using and discard the device, and no product is to be returned to Medline. The identifying codes listed in the notice are: ACC010502, ACC010527, ACC010540, ACC010717, DYNDJ1132, DYNDJ1133, DYNJ909501, DYNJ909501A, DYNJAA269, and DYNJ18860, DYNJ18865, DYNJ18870, DYNJ18875, DYNJ18880 and DYNJ18885 — all lots.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 18 Aug 2026, 00:09current

    First published.

  2. Version 18 Aug 2026, 00:21

    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.