• 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
Device Problem High impedance (1291)
Patient Problem No Known Impact Or Consequence To Patient (2692)
Event Date 03/21/2014
Event Type  malfunction  
Event Description
It was reported that the patient had generator and lead replacement surgery on (b)(6) 2014.The explanted devices were returned for analysis.Analysis was completed on the generator.The device performed according to functional specifications.Analysis concluded that no abnormal performance or any other type of adverse condition was found with the generator.Analysis of the lead has not been completed to date.
 
Event Description
Attempts for additional information have been unsuccessful.
 
Event Description
It was reported that device diagnostics resulted in high impedance.It is unknown if any patient manipulation or trauma occurred that is believed to have caused or contributed to the high impedance.It was later reported that x-rays were performed and would be sent to manufacturer for review.It is unknown if the device was programmed off per manufacturer's recommendations.No surgical intervention has been performed to date.Attempts to obtain additional information have been unsuccessful to date.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
Device failure is suspected, but did not cause or contribute to a death or serious injury.
 
Event Description
X-rays were received and reviewed by manufacturer.Based on the x-rays received, the cause for the reported events are unable to be determined.There was nothing seen that would indicate there was any damage to the generator or lead; however, the presence of a micro-fracture in the lead cannot be ruled out.As the lead could not be assessed, continuity in that portion of the lead cannot be confirmed.Due it image quality the lead that were difficult to visualize and fully assess.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
Manufacturer reviewed x-rays of implanted device.Review of x-rays by the manufacturer, no gross lead discontinuities visualized.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
Manufacturing device history records were reviewed.Review of the lead device history records confirmed all quality specifications were passed prior to distribution.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.During the visual analysis of the returned 200mm portion quadfilar coil 1 appeared to be broken approximately 174mm from the end of the cut outer / inner silicone tubes.Scanning electron microscopy was performed on the connector end of the quadfilar coil 1 coil break (found at 174mm) and identified the area on one of the broken coil strands as having evidence of a stress induced fracture (fatigue appearance) with mechanical damage and no pitting.The area on the second broken coil strand was identified as being mechanically damaged which prevented identification of the coil fracture type and no pitting.The two remaining broken coil strands were identified as being pitted with mechanical damaged which prevented identification of the coil fracture type.Pitting was observed on the coil surface.Scanning electron microscopy was performed on the electrode (mating) end of the quadfilar coil 1 coil break (found at 174mm) and identified the area on one of the broken coil strands as having evidence of a stress induced fracture (fatigue appearance) with mechanical damage and pitting.The remaining broken coil strands were identified as being mechanically damaged which prevented identification of the coil fracture type with pitting.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 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 dried remnants of what appeared to have once been body fluids inside the outer and inner silicone tubes.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.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
LEAD MODEL 302
Type of Device
LEAD
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 Key3757980
MDR Text Key5104149
Report Number1644487-2014-01052
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code MUZ
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeUS
PMA/PMN Number
P970003
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Health Professional,User Facility,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation Physician
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup,Followup,Followup
Report Date 03/21/2014
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received04/17/2014
Is this an Adverse Event Report? No
Is this a Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator Lay User/Patient
Device Expiration Date05/31/2009
Device Model Number302-20
Device Lot Number200228
Was Device Available for Evaluation? Device Returned to Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer10/20/2014
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? Yes
Event Location Other
Date Manufacturer Received11/18/2014
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured05/16/2006
Is the Device Single Use? Yes
Is This a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient Age66 YR
-
-