Search Results

CER-S is a stand-alone software medical device intended to analyze, edit, review and report digital continuous ECG recordings.

CER-S is intended for use in clinical and hospital settings only by qualified medical personnel or adequately trained professional personnel working under the supervision and responsibility of a clinician. Users must undergo a thorough software training before using the medical device.

The device provides the clinician an additional tool to aid in the interpretation of ECG data for diagnosis of heart rhythm disorders in adult and pediatric patients.

Note: This device does not provide an automated interpretation and is not intended for use as the only diagnostic tool.

CER-S analysis provides indications for evaluation of:

• Patients with rhythm disturbances (cardiac arrhythmias),
• Patients with transient myocardial ischemia,
• Patients with pacemaker (only if pacing detection is available from the input recording),
• Patients needing HRV evaluation,
• Newborn patients limited to QRS detection.

CER-S is a tool, designed to offer a framework for the interaction of different software-modules, providing advanced solutions for Continuous ECG Recording (CER). Different modules provide: ECG Beat detection and classification Analysis of ECG rhythm, arrhythmia detection interactive Viewer and set of tools to perform editing of ECG beats, Rhythm annotations and noise Windows interactive Continuous ECG Viewer interactive display/management of ECG Templates Holter-like report for analyzed Continuous ECG records, record exportation, in ISHNE format generation of aECG FDA HL7 XML (v. 2), for the submission of continuous ECG recording to the FDA ECG Warehouse. Note: The automatic analysis is limited to data acquired from electrodes with conductive paste/gel (dry and dry/metal electrodes are not intended to be used) placed on standard location in compatible formats from any device used for the arrhythmia diagnostics such as Holter, event recorder, 12-lead ambulatory ECG devices when assessment of the rhythm is necessary. Moreover, CER-S allows the automatic analysis for the following patch location: two-electrode patches positioned in the left upper chest area at a roughly inclined angle three-electrode triangular shape patches positioned on the patient's left upper chest area below the 1st rib, at an inclined angle three-electrode T-shaped patches positioned in the center-thoracic position between the upper part of the chest (manubrium) and the sternum In all cases, patch placement must strictly follow the indication provided by the manufacturer of the certified-patch device.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information for the CER-S device, based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The provided document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding device performance metrics in a quantitative format (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy thresholds). Instead, it states that "No clinical tests were performed to demonstrate the substantial equivalence of CER-S." The performance data section focuses on adherence to recognized standards and the demonstration of substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

However, the document lists improvements in performance over the predicate device, which can be interpreted as target performance goals for these specific aspects:

Study Details

The submission explicitly states: "No clinical tests were performed to demonstrate the substantial equivalence of CER-S." Therefore, the following sections will indicate "Not applicable" or detail the nature of the non-clinical tests conducted.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable (No clinical test set was used).
• Data Provenance: Not applicable (No clinical test set was used). Non-clinical tests were based on simulations and adherence to specified test standards.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

• Not applicable (No clinical test set and thus no ground truth established by experts for performance evaluation).

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

• Not applicable (No clinical test set requiring adjudication).

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

• No. A MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not performed. The device is described as a "stand-alone software medical device" that aids in interpretation and is "not intended for use as the only diagnostic tool."

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

• Yes. The improvements described, such as "beat detection in recordings with low amplitude and with noise" and "beat measures in recording with higher heart rate," relate to the standalone performance of the algorithm. These improvements were demonstrated through non-clinical tests by adhering to standards such as ANSI/AAMI EC57:1998/(R)2003 and IEC 60601-2-47:2012.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

• For the non-clinical performance evaluation, the "ground truth" was established based on simulated data and standardized test methodologies defined by the referenced ECG performance testing standards (ANSI/AAMI EC57, IEC 60601-2-47, IEC 60601-2-25) to verify the algorithm's accuracy against known, controlled inputs.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not specified within the provided text. The document focuses on regulatory submission and does not detail the specifics of machine learning model training data.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

• Not specified within the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device