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

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: SPACELABS HEALTHCARE INC. SPACELABS ULTRAVIEW SL COMMAND MODULE; ULTRAVIEW SL MULTIPARAMETER MODULE

  • 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
 

SPACELABS HEALTHCARE INC. SPACELABS ULTRAVIEW SL COMMAND MODULE; ULTRAVIEW SL MULTIPARAMETER MODULE Back to Search Results
Model Number 91496
Device Problems Display Difficult to Read (1181); Radio Signal Problem (1511)
Patient Problem Death (1802)
Event Date 03/15/2015
Event Type  Death  
Event Description
Spacelabs received a report that after a transcutaneous pacer was placed and during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (cpr) on (b)(6), 2015 at approximately 12:07 p.M., a patient, monitored with xprezzon bedside monitor model 91393 and command module model 91496, had a monitor display of poor quality ecg signal such that the clinical staff could not assess the waveform.The clinical staff changed electrodes, lead placement and monitor settings but this did not resolve the issue.The patient did not survive cpr.
 
Event Description
Spacelabs received a report that after a transcutaneous pacer was placed and during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (cpr) on (b)(6) 2015 at approximately 12:07 p.M., a patient, monitored with xprezzon bedside monitor model 91393 and command module model 91496, had a monitor display of poor quality ecg signal such that the clinical staff could not assess the waveform.The clinical staff reportedly changed electrodes, lead placement and monitor settings but this did not resolve the issue.The patient did not survive cpr.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
A spacelabs field service engineer (fse) was dispatched to investigate the involved devices.The customer declined the fse access to devices since they were in use on another patient without issue.Spacelabs has launched an investigation into this event and will file a supplemental report upon completion of the investigation.Placeholder.
 
Manufacturer Narrative
A spacelabs field service engineer (fse) was dispatched to investigate the involved devices.The customer declined device access to the fse since the involved devices were in use on another patient without issue.The customer did provide the patient retrospective database for the event.The database was reviewed by a spacelabs lead software engineer.The following information was obtained: the ics database contains 2 leads of ecg, respiration, oxygen saturation, arterial line pressure, pulmonary artery line pressure, and central venous line pressure waveforms from (b)(6) 2015 at 2:07 p.M.To (b)(6) 2015 at 12:33 p.M.(the event occurred (b)(6) 2015 at 12:07 p.M.).The patient was not connected to the monitor between 9:08 a.M.And 11:25 a.M.On (b)(6) 2015.At 11:54:55 a.M.A temporary transcutaneous pacemaker was activated for 98 seconds at a rate of 80 bpm.Between the end of the first session of external pacing at 11:56:33 a.M.And the beginning of the next external pacing at 12:07:11 p.M., the patient was in third degree heart block with evidence of an intra-aortic balloon pump augmenting the arterial blood pressure beginning at 11:59:37 a.M.At 12:07 p.M., transcutaneous pacing resumed, but at a much higher gain than the first session.The higher gain effectively obscures the ecg, though the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the pacing is very accurately revealed by the simultaneous arterial line pressure.This pacing session continued until 12:21:47 p.M.Despite the report in the complaint, the database reveals that the monitored leads were never changed during the 15 minutes of transcutaneous pacing.The monitor accurately captured the ecg waveform from the patient, though the pacing pulses from a transcutaneous pacemaker were so large that they obscured the patient¿s ecg.Despite the lack of meaningful information from the ecg waveform, the invasive pressure waveform provided excellent feedback on the effectiveness of the temporary pacing.There is no evidence in the database that the monitored ecg leads were changed or the electrodes repositioned to mitigate the pacing artifact.There was no malfunction of the spacelabs monitor or command module.This report is considered final and the issue closed.
 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand Name
SPACELABS ULTRAVIEW SL COMMAND MODULE
Type of Device
ULTRAVIEW SL MULTIPARAMETER MODULE
Manufacturer (Section D)
SPACELABS HEALTHCARE INC.
35301 se center st.
snoqualmie WA 98065
Manufacturer Contact
john zeng
35301 se center st.
snoqualmie, WA 98065
4253635915
MDR Report Key4639380
MDR Text Key5617979
Report Number3010157426-2015-00039
Device Sequence Number1
Product Code DSI
Combination Product (y/n)N
Reporter Country CodeUS
PMA/PMN Number
K103142
Number of Events Reported1
Summary Report (Y/N)N
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Health Professional
Reporter Occupation Biomedical Engineer
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup
Report Date 07/29/2015
1 Device was Involved in the Event
1 Patient was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received03/27/2015
Is this an Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is this a Product Problem Report? Yes
Device Operator Health Professional
Device Model Number91496
Other Device ID Number2.05.01
Was Device Available for Evaluation? No
Is the Reporter a Health Professional? Yes
Date Manufacturer Received03/17/2015
Was Device Evaluated by Manufacturer? Device Not Returned to Manufacturer
Is the Device Single Use? No
Is This a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Reuse
Patient Sequence Number1
Treatment
91393 (B)(4); 91393 (B)(4)
Patient Outcome(s) Death;
Patient Age63 YR
-
-