[184074890]
Patient's date of birth unavailable. Device model#, lot#, catalog#, expiration date and udi unavailable. Device manufacture date unavailable because device lot# is unavailable.
Patient Sequence No: 1, Text Type: N, H10
[184074891]
A lead extraction procedure commenced to remove one right ventricle (rv) lead and one right atrium (ra) lead, due to cied system and pocket infection. Spectranetics lead locking devices (lld's) were used in each of the leads to act as a traction platform to aid in extraction. The procedure started by trying to extract the rv lead first. Using a spectranetics 11f tightrail the physician cut through fibrous and calcified tissue around the lead in the left subclavian vein. While in the innominate vein with the 11f tightrail, the physician noticed the rv lead came back into the ra while traction to the rv lead was applied. It was at this time when the patient? S hemodynamics deteriorated rapidly. A tee confirmed pericardial effusion. Cpr was started and the surgical team was called urgently. The surgical team opened the chest via a sternotomy. The surgical team located the tear at the superior vena cava (svc) to right atrial (ra) junction. Patient was put on bypass and the tear was repaired. At this point both the rv and ra leads were extracted. The sternotomy was closed after a temporary epicardial ventricular lead was placed as a back-up. There was no alleged malfunction of any spectranetics devices during the procedure. The physician stated that the tear was due to traction forces being provided by the lld in the rv icd lead and not from the tightrail device, as he did not have the tightrail near the location of the tear. It was reported that the rv lead had loosened and had retracted back into the ra, and this is when the physician thinks the tear to the svc occurred. The patient survived the procedure.
Patient Sequence No: 1, Text Type: D, B5