• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: CYBERONICS, INC. LEAD MODEL 302

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail
-
Super Search Devices@FDA
510(k) | DeNovo | Registration & Listing | Adverse Events | Recalls | PMA | HDE | Classification | Standards
CFR Title 21 | Radiation-Emitting Products | X-Ray Assembler | Medsun Reports | CLIA | TPLC
 

CYBERONICS, INC. LEAD MODEL 302 Back to Search Results
Model Number 302-20
Event Date 01/01/2013
Event Type  Malfunction  
Event Description

The vns treating physician reported that high lead impedance was found during an office visit on (b)(6) 2013. The patient was last seen on (b)(6) 2012 at which time the lead impedance was within normal limits. The physician reported that an x-rays confirmed a distal fracture. The patient was for replacement surgery as soon as possible to prevent more seizures. Clinic notes from the patient's visit on (b)(6) 2013 were received which indicated the patient continued to do well. However, the patient had a breakthrough seizure earlier in (b)(6), followed by brief myoclonic jerks involving his upper limbs. Since then, he has not had any further seizures. He is seizure free on the ketogenic diet. Also on the last office visit, his seizure medications were being weaned off and had been over of seizure medications for about 8 months. The patient had breakthrough seizures that seem to be related to vns lead fracture. Given the good seizure control, the plan was to continue to wean the patient off of seizure medications. Attempts for additional information from the physician's office have been unsuccessful to date, including to obtain a copy of the x-rays. Although generator and lead replacement surgery is likely, it has not occurred to date.

 
Event Description

Product analysis of the generator showed no performance or any other type of adverse conditions found with the pulse generator. Analysis of the lead was also completed. Note that a portion of the lead assembly (body) including the electrodes was not returned for analysis; therefore a complete evaluation could not be performed on the entire lead product. During the visual analysis an abraded opening was observed on the outer silicone tubing and both of the inner silicones were found to be abraded open in half; therefore determination could not be made between the (-) connector pin and (+) connector ring quadfilar coils past this point. These coils were identified as quadfilar coil 1 and quadfilar coil 2. During the visual analysis the (-) connector pin quadfilar coil appeared to be broken approximately 239mm, 242mm and 245mm from the end of the connector boot. The (+) connector ring quadfilar coil appeared to be broken approximately 240mm from the end of the connector boot. Scanning electron microscopy was performed and identified the coil break areas as having extensive pitting which prevented identification of the coil fracture type. During the visual analysis quadfilar coil 1 appeared to be broken approximately 247mm from the end of the connector boot and quadfilar coil 2 appeared to be broken approximately 253mm from the end of the connector boot. Scanning electron microscopy was performed and identified the areas as being mechanically damaged which prevented identification of the coil fracture type with pitting on the quadfilar coil 1 coil break. The abraded openings found on the outer and inner silicone tubes, most likely provided the leakage path for what appeared to be remnants of dried body fluids found inside the outer and inner silicone tubes. What appeared to be white deposits were observed in various locations. It is believed that stimulation was present for a certain period of time as evidenced by the presence of metal pitting. Low magnification sem analysis of the quadfilar coil shows characteristics typical of a lead discontinuity which may include: material fracture, rough or pitted surface, thinned material thickness, electro-etching or material dissolution. With the exception of the observed discontinuities, the condition of the returned lead portion is consistent with conditions that typically exist following an explant procedure. No other obvious anomalies were noted. The setscrew marks found on the lead connector pin provide evidence that, at one point in time, a good mechanical and electrical connection was present. Continuity checks of the returned lead portion were performed, during the visual analysis, and no other discontinuities were identified. Review of the lead manufacturer history records confirmed all quality tests were passed prior to distribution.

 
Event Description

Additional information was received from the hospital reporting that the patient had generator and lead replacement surgery on (b)(6) 2013 and the explanted products were available for return. The explanted products were received by the manufacturer on (b)(6) 2013 for analysis. The return product form indicated the reason for replacement as prophylactic generator replacement and due to lead discontinuity. The implant card was also received and confirmed the date of surgery and indicated the reason for generator replacement as battery depletion with near end of service marked. Product analysis has not been completed to date.

 
Event Description

Operative notes from the patient's revision surgery on (b)(6) 2013 were received which indicated the diagnosis as placement of new lead due to fracture and generator secondary to end-of-life due to length of implant. The patient was doing well but began to lose efficacy with vns. Imaging was obtained which showed a fracture of the lead, explaining the device's 'failure to work. ' during the procedure, an incision was made over the old scar in the neck and dissection was carried down to remove the lead and the anchors. There was significant scar tissue surrounding the sternocleidomastoid, which was carefully dissected free by the surgeon. The lead dove directly posterior at this point, and the surgeon worked through the scar tissue to identify the connecting portion of the electrode. However, the nerve was scarred-in quite heavily, and the surgeon was unable to locate and free up all three of the components that held the nerve. The nerve was traced superiorly into the cicatrix and he tried to free up enough to again identify the previous electrodes, but the scar tissue was so heavy so the surgeon did not feel that he could 'safely dissect the nerve free without some type of injury to it. ' at this point, the surgeon felt that 'removal of the old electrode component was probably not worth the risk of injury to the nerve, and again try to free up as much nerve as possible, although the amount of exposure was very limited. ' the new set of electrodes were then successfully wrapped around the nerve. The surgeon felt that he had adequate contact of the two superior components of the lead, and the third electrode was able to be adequately wrapped around the nerve by laying it down inferiorly. Upon disconnecting the previous lead from the generator, a fracture was observed in the lead. The replacement lead was connected to the replacement generator which resulted in normal impedance upon diagnostics. He noted in the notes that the two electrodes appeared to have good relationships with the nerve. Attempts for additional information from the surgeon have been unsuccessful to date.

 
Event Description

The surgeon's office reported that there was noted to be scarring around the electrode and vagus nerve. However, the believed cause/relationship to vns was not provided. It may be reasonably assumed that it was related to presence of the electrode on the nerve.

 
Manufacturer Narrative

Device failure is suspected and is suspected to have contributed to the patient's increased.

 
Manufacturer Narrative

 
Manufacturer Narrative

Device failure occurred, and it was believed to have contributed to the patient's increased seizures.

 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand NameLEAD MODEL 302
Type of DeviceLEAD
Manufacturer (Section D)
CYBERONICS, INC.
100 cyberonics blvd
houston TX 77058 770
Manufacturer (Section G)
CYBERONICS, INC.
100 cyberonics blvd
suite 600
houston TX 77058
Manufacturer Contact
nydia herzog
100 cyberonics blvd
suite 600
houston , TX 77058
2812287200
MDR Report Key2950000
Report Number1644487-2013-00331
Device Sequence Number1
Product CodeLYJ
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Health Professional,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup,Followup,Followup
Report Date 01/15/2013
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
1 Patient Was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received02/08/2013
Is This An Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is This A Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator LAY USER/PATIENT
Device EXPIRATION Date10/31/2010
Device MODEL Number302-20
Device LOT Number1928
Was Device Available For Evaluation? Device Returned To Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer02/20/2013
Is The Reporter A Health Professional? Yes
Event Location Other
Date Manufacturer Received04/29/2013
Was Device Evaluated By Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured10/02/2007
Is The Device Single Use? Yes
Is this a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial

Patient TREATMENT DATA
Date Received: 02/08/2013 Patient Sequence Number: 1
-
-