It was reported that the patient had increased stimulation and ¿side effects¿ after going through a theft detector at a drug store.The following day, it was reported that the patient didn¿t have any problem with therapy until (b)(6) 2013, when the patient went through the theft detector.The patient started to feel shocks in his left arm and had blurred vision the day after.Additionally, the battery was checked with the patient programmer which showed a call-your-doctor icon.After recharging the battery to 100%, the shocks ceased.The following morning, the battery had completely run down.It was recharged again and reset by the healthcare provider (hcp) but the shocks continued.Since then, ¿satisfactory results in the treatment was no longer obtained¿.On (b)(6) 2014, after several attempts, it was possible to set the device to obtain the therapeutic results prior to the theft detector incident.Five days after that however, a call-your-doctor icon was displayed again.The patient also started to feel shocks in his left arm and the battery started to run down quickly.The device was reprogrammed twice after that but that did not ultimately remedy the situation.Stimulation was subsequently turned off.The reporter believed that ¿the device was not supporting amplitude pulses greater than 3v since there was discharge and the need to turn the device off and reduce the amplitude¿.Four days later, it was reported that the patient was charging more than expected.The message that accompanied the call-your-doctor icon could not be recalled.It was further reported that the patient also started feeling tingling in his arm after going through the theft detector.It was unknown if it was a power-on-reset (por) that was displayed along with the call-your-doctor icon.The device reportedly discharged within a day and the patient believed there was a ¿failure¿ with it.Diagnostic testing performed on (b)(6) 2014 showed the typical recharge duration was 0.5 hours and the typical recharge interval was 0 days and the implantable neurostimulator (ins) status was ok.Similar testing done approximately a week later indicated that the typical recharge duration was 0.4 hours and the typical recharge interval was 0.2 days.It was also noted that stimulation was off.Cycling had been off in both cases and the patient had been programmed to 0+,1+,2-,3+ and 8+,9-,10-,11+ on the left and right globus pallidus (gpi) respectively.No information on coupling was provided for both tests.There were no out-of-range impedances found.The charge percentage at the end of recharge sessions varied, but were not always 100%.Approximately two weeks later, it was reported that a ¿malfunction¿ was observed but the cause of the issue was not determined.Telemetry was performed and information pertaining to that diagnostic testing was pending.Surgery was going to be performed, details related to this of which were unknown at the time.The patient was not receiving effective therapy.If additional information becomes available, a follow-up report will be submitted.
|