• 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 10/21/2014
Event Type  Malfunction  
Event Description

Clinic notes dated (b)(6) 2014 reported that the patient's device was unable to be interrogated due to "not-functioning. " the physician¿s office attributed the failure to interrogate to normal end of service which was substantiated by battery life calculation results of 0 years remaining until neos condition at that time in (b)(6) 2014. The notes also reported that the patient¿s seizures were ¿recurring. ¿ it was noted that sometimes the patient does not take her anti-seizure medication regularly. The patient was seen for surgical consult for generator replacement on (b)(6) 2014, and the surgeon was able to perform diagnostics at which time high lead impedance was discovered. The patient had surgery on (b)(6) 2014. Pre-operatively, system diagnostic test was performed and results were high lead impedance. After the generator was replaced, high lead impedance still was observed. Therefore, the lead was also replaced. After the lead was replaced, diagnostics were within normal limits. The explanted devices were returned to the manufacturer for analysis, but analysis has not completed to date.

 
Manufacturer Narrative

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

 
Manufacturer Narrative

Device failure occurred, but did not cause or contribute to a death.

 
Event Description

On (b)(4) 2014, product analysis was completed on the generator. An open can measurement of the battery voltage confirmed that the eri flag had been properly set; the battery was partially depleted. The partially depleted battery condition was the result of normal, expected battery depletion based on the battery life calculation, the electrical test results and the bench evaluation. Analysis of the generator in the pa lab concluded that no abnormal performance or any other type of adverse condition was found. Product analysis on the lead was completed on 12/3/2014 which confirmed discontinuity of quadfilar coil (unknown polarity) in the electrode region of the returned lead portions; also observed abraded openings of both outer and inner tubing in body region of lead. A portion of the lead assembly including the electrodes was not returned for analysis; therefore a complete evaluation could not be performed on the entire lead product. During the visual analysis of the returned 41mm portion quadfilar coil 1 appeared to be broken approximately 18mm from the end of the electrode bifurcation. Scanning electron microscopy was performed on the connector end of the quadfilar coil 1 coil break (found at 18mm) and identified the area on three of the broken coil strands as being mechanically damaged which prevented identification of the coil fracture type and no pitting. The remaining broken coil strand was identified as being mechanically damaged which prevented identification of the coil fracture type with pitting and evidence of a stress induced fracture (torsional appearance) which most likely completed the fracture. Scanning electron microscopy was performed on the electrode (mating) end of the quadfilar coil 1 coil break (found at 18mm) and identified the area on two of the broken coil strands as being mechanically damaged which prevented identification of the coil fracture type with pitting. The remaining broken coil strands were identified as having extensive pitting which prevented identification of the coil fracture type with mechanical damage. 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 open / cut and slice marks observed 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 found inside the outer and inner silicone tubing. 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 phosphorus, sodium, magnesium, aluminum, sulphur and calcium. Refer to attached eds sheet for additional information. 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. 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 portions were performed, during the visual analysis, and no other discontinuities were identified.

 
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 Key4247650
Report Number1644487-2014-03015
Device Sequence Number1
Product CodeLYJ
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Health Professional,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation HEALTH PROFESSIONAL
Type of Report Initial,Followup
Report Date 10/22/2014
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
0 PatientS WERE Involved in the Event:
Date FDA Received11/13/2014
Is This An Adverse Event Report? No
Is This A Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator LAY USER/PATIENT
Device EXPIRATION Date06/30/2005
Device MODEL Number302-20
Device LOT Number8625
Was Device Available For Evaluation? Device Returned To Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer10/31/2014
Is The Reporter A Health Professional? Yes
Event Location Other
Date Manufacturer Received11/17/2014
Was Device Evaluated By Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured06/17/2003
Is The Device Single Use? Yes
Is this a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial

-
-