• 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 302-30
Event Date 10/05/2013
Event Type  Malfunction  
Event Description

On (b)(4) 2013, it was reported that the patient had the vns device disabled by an unknown doctor in (b)(6) due to chest and neck pain. This was found out by the physician when the patient was hospitalized and admitted to the epilepsy monitoring unit (emu) for an increase in seizures. The physician turned the device back on and performed diagnostics on (b)(6) 2013 (emu admit date) and the results showed low impedance. The patient continued to have chest and neck pain with stimulation. The neurologist turned off the device and it has been off since (b)(6) 2013. Follow up indicates that although the device was implanted since 2004, it was only turned on for the last year or so (per the patient). The patient may be proceeding with device replacement, but no surgery has taken place to date. Attempts for additional information have been unsuccessful. No additional information has been provided.

 
Manufacturer Narrative

Device manufacturing records and programming history were reviewed. Review of manufacturing records confirmed the device met all final testing specifications prior to distribution. Device failure is suspected, but did not cause or contribute to a death or serious injury.

 
Manufacturer Narrative

Initial mfr. Report inadvertently listed the incorrected suspect device.

 
Event Description

It was reported that the patient underwent generator and lead replacement. Preoperative diagnostics were within normal limits. The physician's assistant reported that diagnostics in the physician's office were also within normal limits. During the surgery, the lead (including electrodes) and generator were removed. The surgeon indicated that the electrodes were wrapped tight around the vagus nerve and a "branch" and that there was a lot of scar tissue. The surgeon was certain that it was not the cardiac branches or the laryngeal branches. A new lead was placed on the vagus nerve and new generator was attached to the new lead. Diagnostic tests were within normal limits with the new system. The explanted devices were sent to the hospital pathology and the operating room nurse indicated that the hospital does not usually send back explanted devices. A returned product kit was given and a request to have the explanted devices was provided. It was reported that a company representative went to the site to assess diagnostics on the device prior to surgery being scheduled. It was reported that device diagnostics were unable to be performed due to the patient's complaints of pain and swelling in the neck area. It was reported that the patient was told by the physician that he recommended system replacement based on the patient';s pain and swelling and not based on "bad" diagnostics. The physician left the patient to decide on replacement. The patient reportedly decided on having the device replaced because it was felt that the device was of benefit to the patient. The generator and lead were received for analysis. Analysis of the generator was completed on 04/01/2014. The generator performed according to functional specifications. During the product analysis there were no anomalies found with the pulse generator. Analysis of the lead was completed on 04/01/2014. The puncture mark found on the outer silicone tubing and the cut ends that were made during the explanted process, most likely provided the leakage path for the dried remnants of what appeared to have once been body fluids inside the outer silicone tubing. For the observed inner tubing fluid remnants, there was no obvious path for fluid ingress other than the cut ends that were made during the explanted process. 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, chlorine and calcium. The condition of the returned lead portions is consistent with conditions that typically exist following an explant procedure. No 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, with no discontinuities identified. Based on the findings in the product analysis lab, there is no evidence to suggest an anomaly with the returned portion of the device which may have contributed to the stated complaints.

 
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 Key3527747
Report Number1644487-2013-03847
Device Sequence Number1
Product CodeLYJ
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Health Professional,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation
Type of Report Initial,Followup
Report Date 11/21/2013
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
0 PatientS WERE Involved in the Event:
Date FDA Received12/19/2013
Is This An Adverse Event Report? No
Is This A Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator LAY USER/PATIENT
Device EXPIRATION Date12/31/2005
Device MODEL Number302-30
Device LOT Number009728
Was Device Available For Evaluation? Device Returned To Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer03/12/2014
Is The Reporter A Health Professional? Yes
Event Location Other
Date Manufacturer Received03/05/2014
Was Device Evaluated By Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured12/09/2003
Is The Device Single Use? Yes
Is this a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial

-
-