The pacemaker and the right ventricular lead were received for analysis.The right atrial lead was not returned.Prior to the analysis of the returned devices, the quality documents accompanying the manufacturing processes for the pacemaker and the leads were re-investigated.All production steps were performed accordingly.In particular, the final acceptance tests proved the devices functions to be as specified.Upon receipt, the returned lead solia s 60 was subjected to an extensive analysis.The performance of the lead was scrutinized, including a visual, mechanical, electrical and x-ray inspection.The returned lead proved to be without fault throughout its inspection.In particular, the values of the parameters measured during the electrical and mechanical analysis were within the technical specifications.The provided x-ray image was analyzed.An interaction between both leads in the implanted state cannot be excluded.The pacemaker was interrogated using a programmer device.The interrogation was properly feasible, however, noise was present in the right atrial and right ventricular channels, as mentioned in the complaint and observed on the returned data.The pacemaker was subjected to an electrical analysis.The ability of the device to deliver therapies was verified.The anti-bradycardia pacing pulses proved to be normal and in amplitude and frequency as programmed.The impedance measurement functions were also normal.A sensing test was performed, which did not provide the expected results.Therefore, the pacemaker was opened and subjected to a thorough destructive analysis.The visual inspection of the inner assembly showed no anomalies.The battery was fully charged.Subsequent thorough investigations revealed a damaged integrated circuit on the electronic module, which led to the clinical observation.In summary, inspection of the returned lead showed no anomalies.The clinical observation resulted from a damaged integrated circuit on the electronic module of the pacemaker.The manufacturing records document a flawless device production.It is therefore assumed that the damage occurred after the device shipment, however, the date of occurrence was not determinable.
|