• 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 Problems Fracture; High impedance
Event Date 07/07/2014
Event Type  Malfunction  
Manufacturer Narrative

Corrected data: the initial mfr. Report reported the incorrect date. The date should have been 07/15/2014. The change of date does not change that the report was submitted prior to the 30 day deadline. The initial report is not late as a result of the changed date.

 
Event Description

It was reported that the vns patient was experiencing painful stimulation. The patient¿s device was disabled during an office visit on (b)(6) 2014 and the pain subsided. The patient was referred for surgery and seen on (b)(6) 2014 for a surgical consult. Several positional system diagnostic tests were performed, and all showed lead impedance within normal limits except one. When the patient was standing and leaning over with his head on the exam table, the patient¿s device showed high impedance. The high impedance observation was believed to be due to a microfracture. It was reported that the patient may have manipulated the device. The patient¿s seizures had also increased but not above pre-vns baseline levels. X-rays were taken and were reported by the physician to be unremarkable. The patient was scheduled for surgery on (b)(6) 2014. Several system diagnostic tests were performed before and during the procedure which all showed lead impedance within normal limits (dc dc ¿ 2). Thus, the surgeon elected to cancel the procedure. No known surgical interventions have occurred to date.

 
Manufacturer Narrative

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

 
Manufacturer Narrative

Event description, corrected data: the date of the clinic visit where the device was disabled was inadvertently reported in the initial report as (b)(6) 2014, when the visit had occurred on (b)(6) 2015.

 
Event Description

It was reported that since a lead fracture could not be found at surgery on (b)(6) 2014 the family of the patient decided not to have the lead changed. The device was programmed off to assess whether the patient needed vns before deciding to replace the device. Since the device had been turned off over the year prior, the patient experienced a "major backslide". The patient has been referred again for revision of the lead and generator. No known surgical intervention has occurred to-date.

 
Manufacturer Narrative

The initial report inadvertently did not report that the patient also experienced coughing in addition to the painful stimulation.

 
Event Description

It was reported that the vns patient was experiencing painful stimulation and coughing.

 
Event Description

The generator and lead were replaced on (b)(6) 2015. The reason for replacement was reported as due to a lead discontinuity. The explanted products have not been received to-date. No additional relevant information has been received to-date.

 
Event Description

The explanted products were received for analysis. Analysis was completed for the returned generator 02/04/2016. Results showed no signs of variation in the pulse generator's output signal and demonstrated that the device provided the expected level of output current for the entire monitoring period. The pulse generator diagnostics were as expected for the programmed parameters. The septum was not cored. The generator performed according to functional specifications. There were no performance or any other type of adverse conditions found with the pulse generator. Analysis was completed for the returned portion of the lead on 02/16/2016 and the reported event was not verified within the returned lead portion. Note that since a portion of the lead including the electrode array was not returned for analysis, an evaluation and resulting commentary cannot be made on that portion of the lead. Other than typical wear and explant related observations, no anomalies were identified in the returned lead portion.

 
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
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 Key4006205
Report Number1644487-2014-02007
Device Sequence Number1
Product CodeLYJ
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Health Professional,Company Representative,COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE
Reporter Occupation
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup,Followup,Followup
Report Date 07/15/2014
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
0 PatientS WERE Involved in the Event:
Date FDA Received08/13/2014
Is This An Adverse Event Report? No
Is This A Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator LAY USER/PATIENT
Device EXPIRATION Date11/30/2009
Device MODEL Number302-20
Device LOT Number200371
Was Device Available For Evaluation? Device Returned To Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer01/27/2016
Is The Reporter A Health Professional? No
Was the Report Sent to FDA?
Event Location Other
Date Manufacturer Received01/27/2016
Was Device Evaluated By Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured11/21/2006
Is The Device Single Use? Yes
Is this a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial

-
-