|
Model Number OVATIO DR 6550 |
Device Problem
Failure to Deliver Energy (1211)
|
Patient Problem
No Consequences Or Impact To Patient (2199)
|
Event Date 08/28/2014 |
Event Type
Injury
|
Event Description
|
During a follow-up performed on (b)(6) 2014, a warning message was displayed indicating that the defibrillation system would be ineffective (due to abnormally low shock impedance).In the corresponding episode (classified as ventricular fibrillation), it was observed that capacitors were charged to 34 joules, but no shock could be delivered.The arrhythmia spontaneously ceased.It was also reported that all stored episodes were misclassified as ventricular fibrillation, whereas they correspond to supra-ventricular arrhythmias.Patient care recommendations were provided (evaluate the benefit of a re-intervention for replacing the defibrillation lead).A new follow-up was performed on (b)(6) 2014.Vf induction test was performed.Vf was successfully induced with a 0,6j shock on t-wave; but no shock therapy (34j) could be delivered to reduce the arrhythmia due to overload detection (i.E.The detection of low shock impedance).An external defibrillation shock was reportedly delivered; return to slow rhythm majority was then observed.Re-intervention was performed on (b)(6) 2014.Icd and defibrillation lead were both replaced.The icd will be returned to sorin crm for expertise.
|
|
Event Description
|
During a follow-up performed on (b)(6) 2014, a warning message was displayed indicating that the defibrillation system would be ineffective (due to abnormally low shock impedance).In the corresponding episode (classified as ventricular fibrillation), it was observed that capacitors were charged to 34 joules, but no shock could be delivered.The arrhythmia spontaneously ceased.It was also reported that all stored episodes were misclassified as ventricular fibrillation, whereas they correspond to supra-ventricular arrhythmias.Patient care recommendations were provided (evaluate the benefit of a re-intervention for replacing the defibrillation lead).A new follow-up was performed on (b)(6) 2014.Vf induction test was performed.Vf was successfully induced with a 0,6j shock on t-wave; but no shock therapy (34j) could be delivered to reduce the arrhythmia due to overload detection (i.E.The detection of low shock impedance).An external defibrillation shock was reportedly delivered; return to slow rhythm majority was then observed.Re-intervention was performed on (b)(6) 2014.Icd and defibrillation lead were both replaced.The icd will be returned to sorin crm for expertise.
|
|
Event Description
|
During a follow-up performed on (b)(6) 2014, a warning message was displayed indicating that the defibrillation system would be ineffective (due to abnormally low shock impedance).In the corresponding episode (classified as ventricular fibrillation), it was observed that capacitors were charged to 34 joules, but no shock could be delivered.The arrhythmia spontaneously ceased.It was also reported that all stored episodes were misclassified as ventricular fibrillation, whereas they correspond to supra-ventricular arrhythmias.Patient care recommendations were provided (evaluate the benefit of a re-intervention for replacing the defibrillation lead).A new follow-up was performed on (b)(6) 2014.Vf induction test was performed.Vf was successfully induced with a 0,6j shock on t-wave; but no shock therapy (34j) could be delivered to reduce the arrhythmia due to overload detection (i.E.The detection of low shock impedance).An external defibrillation shock was reportedly delivered; return to slow rhythm majority was then observed.Re-intervention was performed on (b)(6) 2014.Icd and defibrillation lead were both replaced.The icd will be returned to sorin crm for expertise.
|
|
Manufacturer Narrative
|
Preliminary analysis of the returned device confirmed it operated as specified.
|
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|