• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services


  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC

CYBERONICS, INC. BIPOL LEAD MODEL 300 Back to Search Results
Model Number 300-20
Device Problem High impedance
Event Date 06/01/2014
Event Type  Malfunction  
Event Description

It was reported that the vns patient¿s device showed high impedance. The patient had experienced an increase in seizures the past summer following a fall. The patient was referred for surgery but no known surgical interventions have occurred to date. The patient had been doing well with vns. It was noted that the patient had also been experiencing chest pain which was attributed to lateral device migration in the chest which occurred shortly after implant surgery.

Event Description

Additional information was received stating that x-rays were taken for the patient and the physician's office was able to visualize a lead fracture in the x-rays. Thus, the patient was referred for revision surgery. The lead fracture is thought to be due to the patient's fall over the summer, though this cannot be confirmed. The patient's recent increase in seizures is thought to be related to a loss of therapy from the high impedance. The increased seizure rate is around pre-vns levels. No known surgical interventions have occurred to date. Good faith attempts for additional relevant information have been unsuccessful.

Manufacturer Narrative

Device failure is suspected, but did not cause or contribute to a death.

Event Description

Additional information was received that the patient underwent vns generator and lead replacement surgery on (b)(6) 2015 due to high lead impedance. The generator was replaced prophylactically. The explanted generator and lead were received by the manufacturer for analysis. Analysis of the generator concluded that the device performed according to functional specifications. Analysis of the generator concluded that no abnormal performance or any other type of adverse condition was found. Analysis of the lead confirmed a discontinuity of the positive quadfilar coil in the body region of the returned lead portions. The analysis also observed abraded openings of both outer and inner tubing near the break area with associated fluid leaks. Pitting was also observed on the coils at the break location. It is believed that stimulation was present for a certain period of time as evidenced by the presence of metal pitting. With the exception of the observed discontinuity the condition of the returned lead portion is consistent with conditions that typically exist following an explant procedure. No other obvious anomalies were noted.

Manufacturer Narrative

Event Description

Analysis of the lead identified that there were abraded openings in the outer and inner tubing in one area. For the observed fluid leaks, there were only observed in the inside of the outer tubing (not inner tubing).

Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Type of DeviceLEAD
Manufacturer (Section D)
100 cyberonics blvd
houston TX 77058
Manufacturer (Section G)
100 cyberonics blvd
suite 600
houston TX 77058
Manufacturer Contact
njemile crawley
100 cyberonics blvd
suite 600
houston , TX 77058
MDR Report Key4486745
Report Number1644487-2015-03748
Device Sequence Number1
Product CodeLYJ
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Health Professional,Company Representative,COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup,Followup
Report Date 01/08/2015
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
1 Patient Was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received02/05/2015
Is This An Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is This A Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator LAY USER/PATIENT
Device EXPIRATION Date04/30/2003
Device MODEL Number300-20
Device LOT Number2998
Was Device Available For Evaluation? Device Returned To Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer01/14/2016
Is The Reporter A Health Professional? Yes
Was the Report Sent to FDA?
Event Location Other
Date Manufacturer Received02/26/2016
Was Device Evaluated By Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured05/08/2001
Is The Device Single Use? Yes
Is this a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial

Date Received: 02/05/2015 Patient Sequence Number: 1