|
Upon receipt, the lead under complaint was found cut 24cm and 55cm proximal to the lead tip.The distal and medial fragments were returned for analysis.The proximal fragment including the is-1 connector pin was not returned.An extraction aid was found in the lead body.It is reasonable to assume that the lead was cut during the extraction procedure.The performance of the lead fragments was scrutinized, including a visual inspection.The analysis revealed 35cm proximal to the lead tip that the insulation was found abraded through, which is assumed to be the root cause of the reported oversensing.Based on the characteristics of the damage, it is reasonable to assume that the lead was subject to severe mechanical stress due to constant friction against another implantable device such as a nearby lead.Diagnostic images clarifying this assumption were not available.Further damages such as a ruptured ring electrode from the lead body and a deformed insulation 50 cm proximal to the lead tip, most likely occurred during the extraction procedure due to mechanical forces.The manufacturing process for this device was re-investigated.All production steps had been performed accordingly.There was no sign of any inconsistency during the manufacturing process.In conclusion, the analysis did not reveal any sign of a material or manufacturing problem.
|