• 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
Event Date 06/20/2013
Event Type  Malfunction  
Event Description

On (b)(6) 2013 it was reported that the vns patient¿s device had a lead fracture. A battery life calculation was performed with the available data. The result revealed 0. 0 years remaining until end of service = yes. The manufacturing records for the generator and lead were reviewed and device met all specifications prior to distribution. It was later reported that the lead fracture was identified on (b)(6) 2013 by x-ray. The patient was previously seen in 2012 and no lead impedance issues were noted. No patient manipulation or trauma occurred that is believed to have caused or contributed to the lead fracture. Lead and generator were replaced on (b)(6) 2013. Attempts for return of the explanted devices are in progress.

 
Manufacturer Narrative

Device failure is suspected, but did not contribute to a death or serious injury.

 
Event Description

Generator and lead were received for analysis on (b)(4) 2013. Analysis of the generator was completed on (b)(4) 2013. The module performed according to functional specifications. There was no condition noted during the product analysis evaluation that would suggest any anomaly with the device. Analysis of the lead is underway, but has not been completed to date.

 
Manufacturer Narrative

Device failure occurred, but did not cause or contribute to a death or serious injury.

 
Event Description

An analysis was performed on the returned lead portions and the reported high impedance and lead fracture were confirmed. Note that the electrodes were not returned for analysis and therefore a complete evaluation could not be performed on the entire lead product. During the visual analysis of the returned 335mm portion the (-) connector pin and (+) connector ring quadfilar coils appeared to be broken. Scanning electron microscopy was performed on the (+) connector ring quadfilar coil break (found at 270mm) and identified the area on one of the broken quadfilar coil strands as having evidence of a stress induced fracture (fatigue appearance) with mechanical damage and pitting on the coil surface. The area on another broken coil strand was identified as being mechanically damaged which prevented identification of the coil fracture type with pitting. Scanning electron microscopy was performed on the (-) connector pin quadfilar coil break (found at 284mm) and identified the area as having evidence of a stress induced fracture (fatigue appearance) with mechanical damage, fine pitting and evidence of a stress induced fracture (torsional appearance) which most likely completed the fracture. Pitting was observed on the coil surface. 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. The abraded openings and slice marks found on the outer and inner silicone tubes and the cut ends that were made during the explanted process, most likely provided the leakage path for the remnants of what appeared to have once been body fluids inside the outer and inner silicone tubes. What appeared to be white deposits were observed in various locations. Eds (energy dispersion spectroscopy ¿ provides chemical or element identity/composition analysis) was performed and identified the deposit as containing silicon, phosphorus, sodium, magnesium, potassium, zirconium, sulphur and calcium. Refer to attached eds sheet for additional information. With the exception of the observed discontinuity, the condition of the returned lead portions is consistent with conditions that typically exist following an explant procedure. No other obvious anomalies were noted except for the set of setscrew marks found near the end of the connector pin indicating the lead had not been fully inserted into the cavity of the generator. The marks are evidence of a potentially insufficient mechanical contact between conductive surfaces of the generator and connector ring, resulting in a suspect electrical connection to the lead. However, based on the location of the setscrew marks on the pin, it is unknown whether a good electrical connection was present for the connector ring. Canted spring marks were not observed on the rear end of the small o-ring. Continuity checks of the returned lead portions were performed, during the visual analysis, and no other discontinuities were identified. Based on the findings in the product analysis lab, there is evidence to suggest discontinuities in the returned portions of the device. Note that since the electrode array section was not returned for analysis, an evaluation and resulting commentary cannot be made on that portion of the lead.

 
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
njemile crawley
100 cyberonics blvd
suite 600
houston , TX 77058
2812287200
MDR Report Key3231930
Report Number1644487-2013-02153
Device Sequence Number1
Product CodeLYJ
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Foreign,Health Professional,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup
Report Date 06/21/2013
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
0 PatientS WERE Involved in the Event:
Date FDA Received07/17/2013
Is This An Adverse Event Report? No
Is This A Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator LAY USER/PATIENT
Device EXPIRATION Date06/01/2008
Device MODEL Number302
Device LOT Number1129
Was Device Available For Evaluation? Device Returned To Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer10/30/2013
Is The Reporter A Health Professional? Yes
Event Location Other
Date Manufacturer Received11/26/2013
Was Device Evaluated By Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured06/13/2005
Is The Device Single Use? Yes
Is this a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial

-
-