Till today, the lead has not been provided for analysis and could therefore not examined itself.The returned icd first underwent a status interrogation.The interrogation with a clinical programmer showed the device status eos and 268 registered charge processes.The memory content of the icd was checked.The check of the available iegms showed interference signals in the ventricular channel, which led to several shock deliveries, matching the clinical observation.The signal sensing of the device was then checked, which proved to be free of noise.The icd sensed supplied signals free of interference.The continued analysis of the shock holter entries showed that the icd performed at least 128 charge processes on (b)(6) 2017, within 2 hours.These rapidly consecutive charge processes led to the eos activation.The eos state was removed with a technical programmer, and a subsequent interrogation of the icd showed the battery state eri.In a next step, the icds capability to provide therapy was tested.The antibradycardic output signal was normal and matched the programmed values.A fibrillation signal was supplied, and the device reacted according to specifications with a defibrillation shock.The specified energy level was reached, and the charge time proved to be unremarkable.No indications of a device malfunction were found during the analysis.In summary, the lead was not returned for analysis.The icd underwent a thorough analysis.The analysis showed that the device had activated the battery state eos on (b)(6) 2017.The eos activation occurred due to numerous, rapidly consecutive charge processes, caused by interference signals in the ventricular channel.The icd proved to be fully functional during an extensive examination.If the lead itself should become available, the incident will then be updated accordingly.
|