|
We received your event description for the above mentioned device and would like to thank you for supporting our post-market surveillance.As of today, the medical device is not available for analysis, therefore the device itself could not be investigated.The information you provided has been entered into our quality system as a complaint.These types of complaints are used to evaluate systems and device performance throughout our organization and help to maintain and improve the performance of our devices.Should additional relevant information or the device itself become available, the investigation will be updated.
|
|
Prior to the analysis of the device, the quality documents accompanying the manufacturing process for this icd were re-investigated.All production steps were performed accordingly, and in particular the final acceptance test proved the device functions to be as specified.The icd interrogation revealed the eos battery status, detected on (b)(6) 2021.The device was implanted for about 106 months.An amount of 37 charging cycles was documented.Next, the icd was subjected to an electrical analysis.First, the ability of the device to deliver therapies was verified.The anti-bradycardia pacing pulses proved to be normal and in amplitude and frequency as programmed.A fibrillation signal was applied and the device detected the fibrillation signal as specified and started the charging of a defibrillation shock.However, the charging was aborted due to the depleted battery.The memory content of the icd was inspected, revealing a normal current consumption of this device.However, the amount of charge taken from the battery was verified and the battery condition was not as expected.Therefore, the icd was opened and the inner assembly was inspected.The visual inspection of the inner assembly showed no anomalies.In a next step, the electronic module was attached to an external power supply and the eos status was removed with a technical programmer to check the functionality of the electronic module.The measured current consumption was normal and as expected.There was no indication of a malfunction.The battery was sent to the manufacturer for further analysis.The manufacturing records of the battery were inspected, documenting that the battery parameters were within specification during the battery manufacturing.No anomalies were documented during the production process associated with this battery.The visual inspection of the battery did not reveal any external signs of damage.In a next step, the battery was opened for destructive analysis.During the analysis of the inner assembly an elevated internal battery impedance was identified.It is reasonable to assume that the increased impedance has led to a voltage drop and therefore to the clinical consequence.In conclusion, the device was implanted for about 106 months.Further investigations revealed an elevated battery impedance as the root cause of the clinical observation.
|