|
Following a lead revision on (b)(6) 2025, the patient developed redness and swelling at the device pocket beginning in mid (b)(6).These symptoms progressed, and the patient underwent a pocket revision on (b)(6) 2025.At the follow up visit on (b)(6) 2026, persistent erythema and swelling were again noted, and therapy activation was postponed.No device malfunction was identified, and the patient's condition was reported to be improving.On 29jan2026, partial clinical information was received from the site, including a wound culture result showing few staphylococcus epidermidis, confirmation that laboratory testing had been performed (values not provided), continued improvement in pocket appearance, no additional procedures planned, and a scheduled follow up visit.Additional documentation from the site remains pending.Clinical safety reviewed the submitted information on 30jan2026.Based on available records, the adverse event represents a continuation of the same pocket complication that began in mid (b)(6) and required the pocket revision on (b)(6) 2025.Because the event resulted in a surgical intervention, it meets criteria for a serious adverse event (sae).No device malfunction has been identified.The clinical appearance and submitted photo raised suspicion for a localized infection; however, culture findings were non-confirmatory, no physician diagnosis of infection was reported, and the patient's condition has been noted to be improving.
|