• 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. BIPOL LEAD MODEL 300

  • 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. BIPOL LEAD MODEL 300 Back to Search Results
Model Number 300-20
Event Date 03/14/2014
Event Type  Malfunction  
Event Description

It was reported that pre-operative diagnostics for generator replacement surgery resulted in high impedance. It was reported that the patient's device was interrogated for the first time in several years. It was reported that both the generator and lead were replaced. The patient was in a motor vehicle accident in 2012; however, it was unknown if this contributed to the high impedance. An implant card was received indicating that the generator and lead were replaced due to lead discontinuity (>10,000 ohms) and near end of service. It was reported that the explanted devices were discarded by the explanting facility; therefore, no analysis can be performed.

 
Manufacturer Narrative

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

 
Manufacturer Narrative

Date of event; corrected data: additional information indicates that high impedance event occurred at least on (b)(6) 2014.

 
Event Description

The explanted generator and lead were returned to the manufacturer for analysis. There were no performance or any other type of adverse conditions found with the pulse generator. Review of the as-received internal device data showed that the last 25% change in the impedance value was on (b)(6) 2014. Analysis of the returned lead is currently underway.

 
Manufacturer Narrative

(b)(4).

 
Event Description

Analysis of the lead was completed on 10/09/2014. Note that the electrodes were not returned for analysis; therefore a complete evaluation could not be performed on the entire lead product. During the visual analysis of the returned 88mm portion the (+) marked connector quadfilar coil appeared to be broken approximately 13mm past the end of the torn connector silicone / inner silicone tubes. Scanning electron microscopy was performed and identified the area on three of the broken coil strands as having evidence of a stress induced fracture (fatigue appearance) with mechanical damage, pitting on two of the broken coil strands, no pitting on one of the broken coil strands and evidence of a stress induced fracture (torsional appearance) which most likely completed the fracture was observed on one of the broken coil strands. The area on the fourth broken coil strand was identified as being mechanically damaged which prevented identification of the coil fracture type and no pitting. Pitting was observed on the coil surface. During the visual analysis of the returned 170mm portion the (-) unmarked connector quadfilar coil appeared to be broken approximately 2mm and 4mm from the end of the connector bifurcation. Scanning electron microscopy was performed on the (-) unmarked connector quadfilar coil break (found at 2mm) and identified the area on three of the broken coil strands as having evidence of a stress induced fracture (fatigue appearance) with mechanical damage, no pitting and evidence of a stress induced fracture (torsional appearance) which most likely completed the fracture on two of the broken coil strands. Scanning electron microscopy was performed on the (-) unmarked connector quadfilar coil break (found at 4mm) and identified the area three of the broken coil strands as having evidence of a stress induced fracture (fatigue appearance) with mechanical damage, no pitting and evidence of a stress induced fracture (torsional appearance) which most likely completed the fracture on one of the broken coil strands. The area on the fourth broken coil strand was identified as being mechanically damaged which prevented identification of the coil fracture type and no pitting. Pitting was observed on the coil surface. During the visual analysis of the returned 170mm portion the (+) marked connector quadfilar coil appeared to be broken approximately 4mm from the end of the connector bifurcation. Scanning electron microscopy was performed and identified the area as having evidence of a stress induced fracture (fatigue appearance) with mechanical damage, no pitting and evidence of a stress induced fracture (torsional appearance) which most likely completed the fracture on three of the broken coil strands. 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 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 found inside the outer silicone tubing. The slice mark found on one of the 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 found inside the 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, aluminum, sulphur, chlorine and calcium. With the exception of the observed discontinuities the condition of the returned lead portions 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 pins provide evidence that, at one point in time, a good mechanical and electrical connection was present. Continuity checks of the returned lead portions were performed, during the visual analysis, and no other discontinuities were identified.

 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand NameBIPOL LEAD MODEL 300
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 Key3981871
Report Number1644487-2014-01943
Device Sequence Number1
Product CodeLYJ
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Health Professional,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup
Report Date 07/09/2014
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
0 PatientS WERE Involved in the Event:
Date FDA Received08/05/2014
Is This An Adverse Event Report? No
Is This A Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator LAY USER/PATIENT
Device EXPIRATION Date11/30/2003
Device MODEL Number300-20
Device LOT Number4678
Was Device Available For Evaluation? Device Returned To Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer09/05/2014
Is The Reporter A Health Professional? Yes
Event Location Other
Date Manufacturer Received10/09/2014
Was Device Evaluated By Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured12/03/2001
Is The Device Single Use? Yes
Is this a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial

-
-