Information was received from a patient who was implanted with an implantable neurostimulator (ins) for unknown indications for use.It was reported that the patient called to note that they had been implanted with an expired product and wanted to know if it had an impact on device longevity.Agent told them they would have someone give patient a call back to answer their question.Rep noted they spoke to the doctor on (b)(6) 2023 and related that the patient had called and was concerned about the impact the expiration had on the longevity of the device.Patient also had stated they weren't doing well regarding their symptoms and was concerned that this particular device might be the problem.When asked about the background of the situation, the hcp indicated that they were in the case when they were informed of the expiration date on the device.They reported that, at that time, there was a discussion among hospital employees concerning the potential risks of implanting an expired device versus the risks of repeating a second surgery.It was reported that the discussion determined that the risk was deemed less to implant a device that had been expired for about 2 months than was the risk associated with a second surgery.Therefore it was reported that the decision was made to proceed with the case.Per the patents request, a call with the chief tech officer (cto) and rep was made for (b)(6) to answer any outstanding questions.Rep spoke to the patient this morning (b)(6) with the cto and answered questions surrounding battery life and sterility.The patient was seen yesterday by their gastroenterologist and they adjusted patient's settings to 8.5v, 1 sec on/4 sec off, rate of 14.Patient confirmed that their procedure date was (b)(6) 2023.Patient's symptoms have not improved much at this point.
|
Medtronic is submitting this report to comply with fda reporting regulations under 21 cfr parts 4 and 803.This report is based upon information obtained by medtronic, which the company may not have been able to fully investigate or verify prior to the date the report was required by the fda.Medtronic has made reasonable efforts to obtain more complete information and has provided as much relevant information as is available to the company as of the submission date of this report.This report does not constitute an admission or a conclusion by fda, medtronic, or its employees that the device, medtronic, or its employee caused or contributed to the event described in the report.In particular, this report does not constitute an admission by anyone that the product described in this report has any ¿defects¿ or has ¿malfunctioned¿.These words are included in the fda 3500a form and are fixed items for selection created by the fda to categorize the type of event solely for the purpose of regulatory reporting.Medtronic objects to the use of these words and others like them because of the lack of definition and the connotations implied by these terms.This statement should be included with any information or report disclosed to the public under the freedom of information act.Any required fields that are unpopulated are blank because the information is currently unknown or unavailable.A good faith effort will be made to obtain the applicable information relevant to the report.If information is provided in the future, a supplemental report will be issued.
|