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


  • 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

Model Number 102
Event Date 04/01/2012
Event Type  Injury  
Event Description

On (b)(6) 2012, a nurse reported that this vns patient could not feel magnet mode stimulation. The patient did report an inability to perceive normal mode stimulation. The nurse also reported that the patient complained of feeling "seizurey. " this was clarified to mean an increase in seizures. The patient's diagnostics were provided (date unknown). The patient's settings from (b)(6) 2011, (b)(6) 2012, and earlier were provided. A battery life calculation was performed on (b)(6) 2012, with 1. 6 years remaining until eri = yes. On (b)(6) 2012, the patient's nurse provided the following information. The increase in seizures was first observed in (b)(6) 2012. The patient was brought into the hospital for a possible seizure, associated with volume depletion/dehydration. The patient's constant feeling of being "seizurey" started within the past month. The nurse stated that it is unclear if these are prodromal symptoms and/or partial seizures. The symptoms consist of room spinning, numbness left side of head, confusion, and being scared. The patient has a history of mesial temporal sclerosis by mri and generalized activity on eeg. The nurse was unable to get an accurate count of the events. The nurse stated that while diagnostic testing is within normal limits, she presumed that the change in stimulation sensation and increased events are likely related to battery reaching end of service. As intervention, the patient's pulsewidth was decreased on (b)(6) 2012, and the patient's keppra dose was increased on (b)(6) 2012. Prophylactic replacement of generator was also being planned. No information was provided regarding the comparison to pre-vns seizure levels. In response to causal/contributory programming changes or events occurring prior to the increase in seizures, the nurse stated that the patient was admitted to the hospital in (b)(6) 2012, for dizziness followed by loss of consciousness. There was no clear cause, but the patient was hyponatremic, had a subsequent confusion episode and a possible seizure associated with dehydration. Within past month, there have been other possible lifestyle triggers but these were not new. The failure to perceive magnet mode stimulation was first observed within the past month. The patient reportedly uses the magnet frequently and reports being unable to feel magnet stimulation in past month. Previously, she had been able to feel it. No patient manipulation or trauma occurred that is believed to have caused/contributed to the stimulation not perceived. The patient's magnet mode diagnostics were not run. On (b)(6) 2012, the patient underwent surgery. Attempts for product return have been unsuccessful. An additional battery life calculation was performed on (b)(6) 2012, with updated data. The results indicated 1. 69 years to eri=yes.

Event Description

The patient's explanted generator and lead were retuned on (b)(6) 2012. A 'return product form' indicated that the device were explanted due to prophylactic replacement and because the patient did not feel magnet mode stimulation consistently, along with increasing symptoms. Evaluation of the explanted pulse generator's reed switch was performed on the test bench, which confirmed normal, expected reed switch function and magnet current with magnet activation. In the pa lab, the device output signal was monitored for more than 24-hrs, while the generator was placed in a simulated body temperature environment. Results showed no signs of variation in the pulse generator's output signal and demonstrated that the device provided the expected level of output current for the entire monitoring period. The pulse generator diagnostics were as expected for the programmed parameters. The device performed according to functional specifications. Analysis of the generator in the pa lab concluded that no abnormal performance or any other type of adverse condition was found. Follow-up on (b)(6) 2012, showed that the lead was explanted due to a lead discontinuity. Diagnostics from (b)(6) 2012, were also provided. This lead event, along with product analysis results for the explanted lead, is captured in mfr. Report #1644487-2012-02507. Additional follow-up with the initial reporter showed that the patient's events had not resolved since revision. The patient still had the feeling that she was going to have a seizure daily; however, the patient would also feel anxious during these events, so it was difficult to say what the patient was actually experiencing. The patient could also not feel magnet mode stimulation. This was attributed to the patient's current settings being lower than pre-revision settings. The patient was slowly being ramped up. The patient's pre-operative settings and settings from her most recent appointment ((b)(6) 2012) were provided.

Manufacturer Narrative

Analysis of programming history.

Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Type of DeviceGENERATOR
Manufacturer (Section D)
100 cyberonics blvd
houston TX 77058 770
Manufacturer (Section G)
100 cyberonics blvd
suite 600
houston TX 77058
Manufacturer Contact
nydia herzog
100 cyberonics blvd
suite 600
houston , TX 77058
MDR Report Key2702307
Report Number1644487-2012-01846
Device Sequence Number1
Product CodeLYJ
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Health Professional,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation
Type of Report Initial,Followup
Report Date 07/18/2012
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
1 Patient Was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received08/16/2012
Is This An Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is This A Product Problem Report? No
Device Operator LAY USER/PATIENT
Device EXPIRATION Date12/31/2006
Device MODEL Number102
Device LOT Number011989
Was Device Available For Evaluation? Device Returned To Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer09/11/2012
Is The Reporter A Health Professional? Yes
Event Location Other
Date Manufacturer Received09/11/2012
Was Device Evaluated By Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured02/15/2005
Is The Device Single Use? Yes
Is this a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial

Date Received: 08/16/2012 Patient Sequence Number: 1