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

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: CYBERONICS, INC. PULSE GEN MODEL 102 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
 

CYBERONICS, INC. PULSE GEN MODEL 102 GENERATOR Back to Search Results
Model Number 102
Event Date 09/02/2012
Event Type  Injury  
Event Description

Additional information was received from the explant surgeon. The generator was explanted at request of patient. No additional information was provided.

 
Event Description

A nurse in the emergency room reported on (b)(6) 2012, that the vns patient had presented with constant pain in the chest that had started that day. The nurse indicated that the only intervention that they would take it using the vns magnet to disable the device temporarily because they did not think that anything is wrong with the device. She said that another nurse had submitted the report indicating that the patient believed the device was malfunctioning, but that is because she misunderstood what the nurse had said. The patient later reported on (b)(6) 2012, that she wanted to have her vns device removed to due to erratic stimulation which is now painful and constantly stimulating. She mentioned that her device was disabled in 2010 and she did not understand why it is now going off. The patient said that she did not like the way the therapy felt at the time which is why the device was disabled. Additional information was received on (b)(6) 2012, indicating that the patent was scheduled for explant. The patient had vns explant on (b)(6) 2012. Attempts for product return are unsuccessful as the explanting facility requires a patient signed release, and they reported that they will not return to the manufacturer. Follow up with the neurologist's office indicated that the patient was only seen at their clinic one time on (b)(6) 2010, at which time her device was turned off due to difficulty swallowing, coughing, unable to catch her breath, and decreased level of activity. There were no noted causal or contributory factors, and no programming/diagnostics were provided. The patient was being treated by a new ent surgeon. (b)(6) also indicated that the patient called their office on (b)(6) 2012, due to the pain and erratic stimulation in the chest for which she wanted the device removed. Follow up with the patient's treating ent surgeon have been unsuccessful to date.

 
Manufacturer Narrative

 
Event Description

Additional information was received from the patient's explanting surgeon which revealed that the device explanted due to patient comfort. Only the generator was explanted. The pain was believed to be related to "misfiring - headaches, hoarseness, trouble breathing. " the relationship of these events to vns are unclear with the information provided. No causal or contributory programming or medication changes precede the onset of the continuous/erratic stimulation and pain. In addition, no patient manipulation or trauma occur that is believed to have caused/contributed to continuous/erratic stimulation and pain. As of (b)(6) 2012, it was unknown if the patient's symptoms have resolved since explant because the patient had not returned to the surgeon's office. Attempts for return of the explanted device are unsuccessful, as the explanting facility does not return products per hospital policy. A letter was received from the patient on (b)(6)2012. She indicated that on (b)(6) 2012, she had a "breathing problem and it was as if "she was suffocating". She reported that she did not relate these events vns. Then on (b)(6) 2012, she went to the emergency room and "wore a magnet for over a week. " she reported that her device was tuned off two years ago, and "the surgeon said it was malfunctioning" the neurologist at the emergency room "said this was not normal and also said it was malfunctioning". The patient continued to state that she was told (by an unknown source) that she "could have problems in the future from this problem". She was writing with regards for reimbursement for "pain and suffering". Attempts for additional information from the treating physicians have been unsuccessful to date. Previous follow up with the neurologist regarding the device disablement in 2010 was performed which revealed that the patient was only seen at their clinic one time on (b)(6) 2010, at which time her device was turned off due to difficulty swallowing, coughing, unable to catch her breath, and decreased level of energy during physical activity. These events were reportedly related to stimulation, except it is unknown if the decreased energy level was. The patient claimed her energy level decreased during physical activity, but this could not be confirmed by the physician's office. There were no noted causal or contributory factors, and no programming/diagnostics were provided. No additional interventions were taken in 2010, and no additional information was provided.

 
Search Alerts/Recalls

  New Search  |  Submit an Adverse Event Report

Brand NamePULSE GEN MODEL 102
Type of DeviceGENERATOR
Manufacturer (Section D)
CYBERONICS, INC.
100 cyberonics blvd
houston TX 77058 770
Manufacturer (Section G)
CYBERONICS, INC.
100 cyberonics blvd
suite 600
houston TX 77058
Manufacturer Contact
nydia herzog
100 cyberonics blvd
suite 600
houston , TX 77058
2812287200
MDR Report Key2769409
Report Number1644487-2012-02493
Device Sequence Number1
Product CodeLYJ
Report Source Manufacturer
Source Type Consumer,Health Professional,Company Representative
Reporter Occupation
Type of Report Initial,Followup,Followup
Report Date 09/05/2012
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
1 Patient Was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received10/02/2012
Is This An Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is This A Product Problem Report? No
Device Operator LAY USER/PATIENT
Device EXPIRATION Date07/31/2005
Device MODEL Number102
Device LOT Number009257
Was Device Available For Evaluation? No
Is The Reporter A Health Professional? Yes
Event Location Other
Date Manufacturer Received11/15/2012
Was Device Evaluated By Manufacturer? Device Not Returned To Manufacturer
Date Device Manufactured09/17/2003
Is The Device Single Use? Yes
Is this a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device? No
Type of Device Usage Initial

Patient TREATMENT DATA
Date Received: 10/02/2012 Patient Sequence Number: 1
-
-