| Model Number |
4554 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Fracture (1260)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Codes |
Device Overstimulation of Tissue (1991); Discomfort (2330); Foreign Body In Patient (2687)
|
| Date of Event |
07/18/2024
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the patient with this left ventricular (lv) lead was experiencing phrenic nerve stimulation and chest discomfort.The physician decided to explant the lead, during the procedure the lead broke and was unable to be fully extracted.No additional adverse patient effects were reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This report was amended to update international medical device regulators forum (imdrf) codes.Incomplete coding of this event was identified during a retrospective review of complaints associated with capa-8580, which focused on identifying and remediating incomplete coding of events.Added patient code e2008.A review of the device history record (dhr) was performed.The review of the dhr identified that there were no process related non-conformances, scrap, or rework performed during the production that could explain the event.The reviews ensure each device meets specification prior to release for use.There is no indication the device manufacturing process contributed to the reported complaint.A risk review was completed and confirmed that the event of damaged/defective was defined in the risk documentation.This event type has been accounted for during product risk analysis to support acceptable risk benefit for the product.Review of labeling determined that the complaint situation was listed in the manual.There was no indication in the complaint that the product was not used in accordance to labeling.The manual was unlikely to be the cause of the reported complaint; translation, wording, or graphics does not require further review.The lead was not returned for analysis; therefore, a technical analysis could not be performed.Based on a thorough review of the reported complaint, boston scientific has assigned an investigation conclusion code of known inherent risk of device.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the patient with this left ventricular (lv) lead was experiencing phrenic nerve stimulation and chest discomfort.The physician decided to explant the lead; however, during the procedure the lead broke and was unable to be fully extracted.No additional adverse patient effects were reported.The explanted portion of lead was not returned for analysis.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that the patient with this left ventricular (lv) lead was experiencing phrenic nerve stimulation and chest discomfort.The physician decided to explant the lead; however, during the procedure the lead broke and was unable to be fully extracted.No additional adverse patient effects were reported.The explanted portion of lead was not returned for analysis.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
This report was amended to update international medical device regulators forum (imdrf) codes.Incomplete coding of this event was identified during a retrospective review of complaints associated with capa-8580, which focused on identifying and remediating incomplete coding of events.Added patient code e2008.A review of the device history record (dhr) was performed.The review of the dhr identified that there were no process related non-conformances, scrap, or rework performed during the production that could explain the event.The reviews ensure each device meets specification prior to release for use.There is no indication the device manufacturing process contributed to the reported complaint.A risk review was completed and confirmed that the event of damaged/defective was defined in the risk documentation.This event type has been accounted for during product risk analysis to support acceptable risk benefit for the product.Review of labeling determined that the complaint situation was listed in the manual.There was no indication in the complaint that the product was not used in accordance to labeling.The manual was unlikely to be the cause of the reported complaint; translation, wording, or graphics does not require further review.The lead was not returned for analysis; therefore, a technical analysis could not be performed.Based on a thorough review of the reported complaint, boston scientific has assigned an investigation conclusion code of known inherent risk of device.The allegation of fracture was confirmed based on the age of the lead; however, x-ray analysis was inconclusive and the lead was not returned for physical testing.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|