• 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 04/25/2016
Event Type  Injury  
Event Description

Clinic notes were received indicating that a vns patient was experiencing painful stimulation (a "shocking" sensation) for which the generator was disabled. It is stated that the painful stimulation stops when someone palms her in the back behind where the vns is placed. It is stated that when it shocks her it shocks her down her arm down to her elbow, in shoulder blade area, up into her neck, head, and teeth. She states that moving her left arm sets it off. The patient was then referred for generator replacement evaluation. Review of available data in the programming and history database revealed no anomalies. A battery life calculation performed with available data indicated the device has 8. 5 years remaining until neos = yes although the last 4 years of programming data is missing. Follow up with the provider indicated that the most recent device check was (b)(6) 2016 and when asked for battery status on that date the provider indicated the battery was "failing. " the provider indicated that vns was turned off until the battery could be replaced and increase seizure medication was prescribed until vns can be turned back on. The provider stated that the increase in anti-seizure medication was to preclude a serious injury since the vns device had been turned off awaiting generator replacement surgery although the patient had not actually experienced an increase in seizure. Further follow up with the provider indicated that while the clinic notes did not specifically indicate which battery indicator was observed the providers felt the patient's device was at neos or eos. The physician attributed the painful stimulation to the low battery condition and elected to disable the device output for patient comfort reasons. The provider submitted additional clinic notes containing device settings. An updated blc performed based on the newly submitted settings indicated that the device has approximately 8. 1 years remaining longevity. No device diagnostic data could be found in the clinic notes therefore the impedance status of the system was unknown. The device was subsequently evaluated and found not to be at eos and had normal lead impedance values in 3 different head/neck positions but the providers elected to proceed with generator replacement surgery on a prophylactic basis. The generator was successfully explanted and replaced on (b)(6) 2016 and normal impedance was observed with the new generator attached to the former lead (dc dc 2).

 
Event Description

The generator was received for product analysis. During analysis there were no performance or any other type of adverse conditions found with the pulse generator and the generator performed according to functional specifications. Proper functionality of the pulse generator in its ability to provide appropriate programmed output currents can be verified. In addition, the septum was not cored, thus eliminating the possibility of a potential unintended electrical current path through body fluids. The pulse generator diagnostics were as expected for the programmed parameters. 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 device had not reached an neos or eos condition. No new events have been reported following device replacement.

 
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
Manufacturer (Section G)
CYBERONICS, INC.
100 cyberonics blvd
suite 600
houston TX 77058
Manufacturer Contact
njemile crawley
100 cyberonics blvd
suite 600
houston , TX 77058
2812287200
MDR Report Key5689538
Report Number1644487-2016-01170
Device Sequence Number1
Product CodeLYJ
Report Source Manufacturer
Reporter Occupation HEALTH PROFESSIONAL
Type of Report Followup
Report Date 05/06/2016
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
1 Patient Was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received05/31/2016
Is This An Adverse Event Report? Yes
Is This A Product Problem Report? No
Device Operator LAY USER/PATIENT
Device EXPIRATION Date06/30/2011
Device MODEL Number102
Device LOT Number201231
Was Device Available For Evaluation? Device Returned To Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer06/21/2016
Is The Reporter A Health Professional? Yes
Was the Report Sent to FDA?
Event Location Other
Date Manufacturer Received06/21/2016
Was Device Evaluated By Manufacturer? Yes
Date Device Manufactured10/14/2009
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: 05/31/2016 Patient Sequence Number: 1
-
-