• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: LIVANOVA USA, INC. PULSE GEN MODEL 1000; GENERATOR

  • 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
 

LIVANOVA USA, INC. PULSE GEN MODEL 1000; GENERATOR Back to Search Results
Model Number 1000
Device Problem Mechanical Problem (1384)
Patient Problem Seizures (2063)
Event Date 11/08/2018
Event Type  malfunction  
Event Description
It was reported that programming system "error code 254: apply changes interrupted" was observed when trying to enable autostimulation on a patient.No other functional issues with the generator or programming system were reported.It was noted that the patient's normal and magnet mode stimulation were programmed without issue; heart rate detection was enabled for the patient.The patient was seen back in clinic and the same error code was received with two of the clinic tablets as well as the company representative's tablet.It was stated that the patient was cooperative and has a high level of function so there was no unintentional movement of the wand positioning.The programming wand was held appropriately over the generator while attempting to program the patient however the error continued to appear.It was noted that the representative was able to disable and re-enable autostimulation, but could not change parameters.The patient was seen again for an emergency visit as she was no longer able to feel magnet mode stimulation.The company representative attempts magnet mode diagnostics and increasing magnet mode settings, but kept receiving error code 254.It was clarified that he was able to interrogate the device and pull up the patient's parameters.Impedance was showing to be within normal limits.However, when trying to change any settings, the error code would appear.It was reported that the patient was beginning to experience an increase in seizures and would be looking to replace the device if settings could not be adjusted.It was further noted that the patient used to inhibit stimulation a "significant" amount as the patient had voice alteration with stimulation.However, after (b)(6), she had stopped inhibiting stimulation so often because she realized she no longer had voice alteration and believed she had just grown accustomed to the stimulation.Multiple troubleshooting steps were performed at this visit but programming attempts were unsuccessful.Tablet data was received and reviewed and the programming issues were determined to likely be related to a "stuck" reed switch.No additional relevant information was received to date.
 
Event Description
At the patient's follow up appointment, the suggested troubleshooting steps were followed.The magnet was swiped several times in succession, but the device still could not be programmed.Then the generator was reset, and the device was now able to be programmed but now showed "low impedance".The patient reportedly still could not feel stimulation.It was discussed that the low impedance may be a "false" display as a result of the output current not being delivered.Replacement surgery was scheduled.No confirmation that surgery occurred was received to date.No additional relevant information was received to date.
 
Event Description
Product analysis was completed for the returned generator.It was confirmed through product analysis that the reed switch was stuck closed.Bench testing verified that the reed switch would stick after a magnet was applied.The gauss that was measured over the reed switch was between 5.5 and 6.0 gauss, which exceeded the drop-out specification that a closed reed switch must open by (drop-out requirement of 5 gauss).Review of the magnet status indicated 177 magnet holds, 1006 magnet swipes, which would indicate that the reed switch was stuck closed.The generator was subjected to and completed a final electrical test the generator failed magnet detection.No additional, relevant information was received.
 
Event Description
The patient reported from a call that she felt her emotions were "10 times out of wack" and was experiencing increased seizures.She stated that her medicine was increased, but wanted to know if this would be a normal side effect of vns.An implant card was received indicating that the patient' generator was prophylactically replaced.It was confirmed that the device would be returned for analysis.No device has been received to date.No additional, relevant information was received to date.
 
Event Description
The explanted device was received for analysis.Analysis has not been completed to date.No additional relevant information was received to date.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
PULSE GEN MODEL 1000
Type of Device
GENERATOR
Manufacturer (Section D)
LIVANOVA USA, INC.
100 cyberonics blvd
houston TX 77058
Manufacturer (Section G)
LIVANOVA USA, INC.
100 cyberonics blvd
suite 600
houston TX 77058
Manufacturer Contact
rachel kohn
100 cyberonics blvd
suite 600
houston, TX 77058
2812287200
MDR Report Key8127578
MDR Text Key129173708
Report Number1644487-2018-02201
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code LYJ
UDI-Device Identifier05425025750405
UDI-Public05425025750405
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeUS
PMA/PMN Number
P970003
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type company representative,consum
Reporter Occupation Other
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup,Followup,Followup
Report Date 03/26/2019
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received12/03/2018
Is this an Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is this a Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator Lay User/Patient
Device Expiration Date06/18/2020
Device Model Number1000
Device Lot Number204557
Was Device Available for Evaluation? Device Returned to Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer02/08/2019
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? No
Event Location Other
Date Manufacturer Received03/19/2019
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured07/24/2018
Is the Device Single Use? Yes
Is This a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial
Patient Sequence Number1
Patient Outcome(s) Other;
Patient Age27 YR
-
-