| Model Number |
PARADYM RF VR 9250 |
| Medical Device Problem Codes |
Over-Sensing (1438); Inappropriate/Inadequate Shock/Stimulation (1574)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Information (3190)
|
| Date of Event |
12/23/2019
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
The device involved in this mdr report is not approved in the united states; however, it is similar to a device manufactured by sorin that was cleared or approved by fda for marketing in the united states.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The defibrillation system was implanted on (b)(6) 2015.Reportedly, therapies were delivered so the patient went to the hospital on (b)(6) 2019 for a review, which revealed noise oversensing.The electrode was checked with fluoroscopy and no damage was observed.The physician decided to deactivate atp and shock therapies to monitor the patient.A follow-up was scheduled for (b)(6) 2020.On (b)(6) 2020, the defibrillation system was explanted and should be returned for analysis.During the procedure, it was not possible to explant the lead by using a stylet and retracting the helix.Therefore, the lead was explanted using another system.The physician reported that the damage on the external coil was due to the extraction maneuvers, however the filament on the proximal coil was not caused by the procedure.Preliminary analysis revealed that the noise oversensing was most probably due to a ventricular lead issue.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Please refer to the attached analysis report.- attachment: [20200322 - file-2019-04407 - analysis_and_closure_report_resp-2020-00313.Pdf].
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The defibrillation system was implanted on (b)(6) 2015.Reportedly, therapies were delivered so the patient went to the hospital on (b)(6) 2019 for a review, which revealed noise oversensing.The electrode was checked with fluoroscopy and no damage was observed.The physician decided to deactivate atp and shock therapies to monitor the patient.A follow-up was scheduled for (b)(6) 2020.On (b)(6) 2020, the defibrillation system was explanted and should be returned for analysis.During the procedure, it was not possible to explant the lead by using a stylet and retracting the helix.Therefore, the lead was explanted using another system.The physician reported that the damage on the external coil was due to the extraction maneuvers, however the filament on the proximal coil was not caused by the procedure.Preliminary analysis revealed that the noise oversensing was most probably due to a ventricular lead issue.
|
| |
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
The defibrillation system was implanted on (b)(6)2015.Reportedly, therapies were delivered so the patient went to the hospital on (b)(6)2019 for a review, which revealed noise oversensing.The electrode was checked with fluoroscopy and no damage was observed.The physician decided to deactivate atp and shock therapies to monitor the patient.A follow-up was scheduled for (b)(6)2020.On (b)(6)2020 , the defibrillation system was explanted and should be returned for analysis.During the procedure, it was not possible to explant the lead by using a stylet and retracting the helix.Therefore, the lead was explanted using another system.The physician reported that the damage on the external coil was due to the extraction maneuvers, however the filament on the proximal coil was not caused by the procedure.Preliminary analysis revealed that the noise oversensing was most probably due to a ventricular lead issue.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Preliminary analysis of the returned device confirmed that electrical and mechanical characteristics were within specifications.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|