• 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 12/24/2013
Event Type  Malfunction  
Event Description

It was reported that the explanted generator and lead were not discarded and would be returned for analysis. The generator and lead were received for analysis. Analysis is underway, but has not been completed to date.

 
Event Description

It was reported that the patient's parents have decided to explant the device. A high quality x-ray image was sent to manufacturer which identified a lead break in a portion of the lead. The patient underwent generator explant. It was reported that the lead electrode was left implanted. It was reported that the generator was discarded by the operating room nurse.

 
Manufacturer Narrative

Report source, corrected data: supplemental manufacturer report #02 inadvertently did not include the report source. Date received by manufacturer, corrected data: supplemental manufacturer report #02 inadvertently did not include (b)(4) 2014 as the date received by the manufacturer.

 
Event Description

It was reported that device diagnostics resulted in high impedance (>10,000 ohms). The reported that he would see the patient again to program the device off and x-rays would be taken. It was reported that no patient manipulation or trauma occurred that is believed to have caused or contributed to the high impedance. X-rays were reviewed by manufacturer. A sharp angle was identified in the lead which could contribute to the high impedance. It was also noted that the lead pin did not appear to be fully inserted into the generator header which could also be a cause for the high impedance. The physician reported that he wants to leave the generator programmed off for approximately 3-6 months to see if the patient's condition worsens. The physician does not believe that the patient had any real benefit from vns therapy. It was reported that if the patient's condition worsens then the patient will be referred for lead replacement surgery.

 
Manufacturer Narrative

Manufacturer reviewed x-rays of implanted device. Device manufacturing records were reviewed. X-rays reviewed by the manufacturer identified a sharp angle in the lead. The lead pin did not appear to be fully inserted in the generator header. Review of manufacturing records of the lead confirmed all quality tests were passed prior to distribution. Device failure is suspected, but did not cause or contribute to a death or serious injury.

 
Manufacturer Narrative

Only a portion of the lead was returned for analysis which did not reveal any anomalies. Device failure is suspected in the lead portion not returned, but did not cause or contribute to a death or serious injury. Date of event, corrected data: additional information indicates that the event occurred at least on (b)(6) 2013.

 
Event Description

Monitoring of the generator output signal showed no signs of variation in the pulse generator¿s output signal and demonstrated that the device provided the expected level of output current. The pulse generator diagnostics were as expected for the programmed parameters. In addition, a comprehensive automated electrical evaluation showed that the pulse generator performed according to functional specifications. There were no performance or any other type of adverse conditions found with the pulse generator. During analysis of the returned lead portion, the slice 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. The condition of the returned lead portion is consistent with conditions that typically exist following an explant procedure. No obvious anomalies were noted except for the set of setscrew marks found at the end of the connector pin indicating the lead had not been fully inserted into the cavity of the generator. The additional 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 and no discontinuities were identified. Based on the findings, there is no evidence to suggest discontinuities in the returned portion of the device which may have contributed to the reported high impedance. Note that since a large portion of the lead assembly was not returned for analysis, an evaluation and resulting commentary cannot be made on that portion of the lead. Review of the as-received internal device data showed that the last 25% change in the impedance value was on (b)(6) 2013.

 
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 Key3672504
Report Number1644487-2014-00656
Device Sequence Number1
Product CodeLYJ
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Foreign,Health Professional,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup,Followup,Followup
Report Date 02/11/2014
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
0 PatientS WERE Involved in the Event:
Date FDA Received03/11/2014
Is This An Adverse Event Report? No
Is This A Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator LAY USER/PATIENT
Device EXPIRATION Date10/31/2011
Device MODEL Number302-20
Device LOT Number200931
Was Device Available For Evaluation? Device Returned To Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer05/02/2014
Is The Reporter A Health Professional? Yes
Event Location Other
Date Manufacturer Received05/28/2014
Was Device Evaluated By Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured10/16/2008
Is The Device Single Use? Yes
Is this a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial

-
-