| Model Number |
4086 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Signal Artifact/Noise (1036); Over-Sensing (1438); Low impedance (2285); Material Integrity Problem (2978)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
10/15/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that this pacemaker exhibited low pacing impedance out of range (oor) measurements on the right atrial (ra) lead, which triggered to lead safety switch (lss) from bipolar to unipolar mode.Inappropriate atrial tachy response (atr)s due to noise was also observed prior and post lss.It was confirmed that this ra lead has an insulation breach.Further evaluation was recommended.Currently, this product remains in service and no adverse patient effects were reported.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that this pacemaker exhibited low pacing impedance out of range (oor) measurements on the right atrial (ra) lead, which triggered to lead safety switch (lss) from bipolar to unipolar mode.Inappropriate atrial tachy response (atr)s due to noise was also observed prior and post lss.It was confirmed that this ra lead has an insulation breach.Further evaluation was recommended.Currently, this product remains in service and no adverse patient effects were reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Follow up report 1 (device evaluation): the complaint device was not returned to boston scientific; therefore, product analysis could not be performed.The "known inherent risk of device" conclusion code was selected because this is well known old lead.Damage occurring to old leads are not unexpected and can result from multiple causes.In addition, the complaint device was not returned to bsc - product analysis could not be performed.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.Since the reported issues are covered by the instructions for use, it can be concluded that expected or well-understood factors most probably contributed to the event.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|