| Model Number |
3401 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
High impedance (1291); Failure to Convert Rhythm (1540); Impedance Problem (2950); Migration (4003)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
Shock (2072)
|
| Date of Event |
01/28/2026
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Serious Injury
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that this subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (s-icd) exhibited high shock impedance measurements.Upon review, it was noted that the shock impedance at defibrillation threshold (dft) test implant was 75 ohms.Troubleshooting options were discussed and recommended.An x-ray was performed and it was observed that the electrode was moved.Then, a dft test was made and the s-icd failed in terminating ventricular fibrillation (vf).Subsequently, a revision procedure was performed and the electrode was explanted and replaced.No additional adverse patient effects were reported.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
It was reported that this subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (s-icd) exhibited high shock impedance measurements.Upon review, it was noted that the shock impedance at defibrillation threshold (dft) test implant was 75 ohms.Troubleshooting options were discussed and recommended.An x-ray was performed and it was observed that the electrode was moved.Then, a dft test was made and the s-icd failed in terminating ventricular fibrillation (vf).Subsequently, a revision procedure was performed and the electrode was explanted and replaced.No additional adverse patient effects were reported.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
If pertinent information is provided in the future, a supplemental report will be submitted.The returned electrode was thoroughly inspected and analyzed.Resistance tests were completed to assess electrical performance and inner insulation integrity.Measurements throughout these tests were within normal limits.Microscopic inspections of the terminal pin assembly and electrode body found no anomalies.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.Based on a thorough review of the reported complaint, boston scientific has assigned an investigation conclusion code of known inherent risk of device.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|