Search Results

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Unimed Reusable SpO2 Sensors are indicated for the continuous, non-invasive monitoring of functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and pulse rate (PR) in adult patients weighing greater than 30 kg who are either well or poorly perfused. The device is intended for use under no-motion conditions in professional healthcare environments. These devices are for prescription use only.

The subject device (U403S-06) is Unimed Reusable SpO2 Sensor and are fully compatible for use with BCI SPECTRO2 10. The sensor is supplied non-sterile.

The subject sensor consists of a plug/connector (BCI DB9 sensor connector), a cable (1.1 m), and a patient-contacting sensor (soft tip: U403S-06) where light-emitting diode (LED) and photodetector (PD) are located. The subject sensor shares the same principle of operation as the predicate device for functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and pulse rate (PR) measurements. Also, the subject sensor has identical material composition and performance characteristics to the predicate device.

The purpose of the submission is to receive clearance to market U403S-06 under their own 510k.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

Unimed Reusable SpO2 Sensors are indicated for the continuous, non-invasive monitoring of functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and pulse rate (PR) in adult patients weighing greater than 30 kg who are either well or poorly perfused. The device is intended for use under no-motion conditions in professional healthcare environments. These devices are for prescription use only.

The subject device is Unimed Reusable SpO2 Sensors intended for non-invasive measurement of functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and pulse rate (PR) in clinical settings. The sensor is designed for compatibility with CSI 8100EP1, and is supplied non-sterile.
The sensor consists of a connector, a cable, and a finger clip housing incorporating a light-emitting diode (LED) and photodetector (PD). The subject device operates on the same principle and share similar design features, materials, and performance characteristics as the predicate device.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

The Pulse Oximeter is intended for spot-checking in measuring and displaying functional arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and pulse rate. It is intended for adult, adolescent, child users in hospitals, hospital facilities and home healthcare environments.

The Pulse Oximeter model BM20, can display the SpO2 and PR, plethysmogram wave and other indication parameters, such as pulse battery power status and the PI. The model BM20 Pulse Oximeter include the mainboard, display and lithium battery. It has small size, light weight, easy to carry. It adopts low power consumption design, and has the function of battery capacity display.

The pulse oximeter, model BM20, is designed for spot checking of the pulse oxygen saturation and pulse rate for adults, pediatric and adolescent patients in professional healthcare facility or home conditions when physician follow-up and operated by a physician. And it is not intended to be used under motion or low perfusion scenarios. This medical device can be reused. Not for continuously monitoring.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

Unimed Reusable SpO2 Sensors are indicated for continuous non-invasive monitoring of functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and pulse rate (PR) for adult patients weighing greater than 30 kg and pediatric patients weighing 10-50 kg. These devices are for prescription use only.

The subject devices are Unimed Reusable SpO2 Sensors intended for non-invasive measurement of functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and pulse rate (PR) in clinical settings. The sensors are designed for compatibility with GE B40i, and are supplied non-sterile.

Each sensor consists of a connector, a cable, and a reusable patient-contacting sensor element incorporating a light-emitting diode (LED) and photodetector (PD). The sensors are available in multiple configurations, including finger clip, wrap, and soft-tip types, to accommodate various patient needs and anatomical sites.

The subject devices operate on the same principle and share similar design features, materials, and performance characteristics as the predicate device.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study details for the Unimed Reusable SpO2 Sensors, based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Information

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

   • Sample Size: Twelve human adult volunteers were enrolled for the clinical study. The study contains more than the minimum 200 data points.
   • Data Provenance: The study was conducted on human adult volunteers and includes sufficient darkly pigmented subjects (three dark subjects with Fitzpatrick Type 5-6). It is a prospective clinical study. The country of origin is not explicitly stated but implies testing in a controlled clinical environment, likely linked to the manufacturer's location or a designated clinical trial site.

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

   • The document implies that arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) as determined by co-oximetry was used as the ground truth. This is a direct measurement from blood samples. Therefore, typical "experts" in the sense of human readers adjudicating images are not applicable here. The accuracy of co-oximetry itself is the standard.

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

   • Not applicable. The ground truth (SaO2 by co-oximetry) is a direct, objective measurement, not subject to human interpretation or adjudication in the same way as an imaging study.

4. 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:

   • Not applicable. This device is a sensor (hardware) for SpO2 and pulse rate measurement, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool or an imaging system that would involve human reader interpretation. No MRMC study was conducted.

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

   • Not applicable. The device is a sensor that measures physiological parameters. Its performance is inherent to its design and function, not an algorithm's performance. The "clinical test data" section describes the validation of the sensor's accuracy in vivo.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • Arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) as determined by co-oximetry. This is an objective "gold standard" for blood oxygen measurement.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This device is a hardware sensor, not a machine learning model that requires a training set. The clinical study described is for validation/testing, not training.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Avidhrt Sense is a handheld spot-checking measurement device, indicated to do the following:
• Non-invasive spot checking of functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (% SpO2) and pulse waveform (when prescribed by a physician).

Avidhrt Sense SpO2 is intended for use in adult patients in the home environment. The Avidhrt Sense SpO2 is not for continuous monitoring, use during motion or for patients with low perfusion. The Avidhrt Sense SpO2 is not intended for pediatric use.

Avidhrt Sense SpO2 is a handheld spot-checking measurement device designed for non-invasive spot checking of functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (% SpO2) and pulse waveform (when prescribed by a physician). Avidhrt Sense SpO2 is used in conjunction Avidhrt Sense SpO2 smart phone app that displays the SpO2.

Here’s a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study proving device performance for the Avidhrt Sense SpO2, based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document states "satisfied the prespecified performance criteria" for the Arms values, indicating these reported values are within the acceptable limits.

Study Details Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria

1. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

• Sample Size: 12 healthy volunteer subjects.
• Data Provenance: The study was a "controlled hypoxia or desaturation study," which is typically a prospective, controlled clinical study conducted in a specialized lab environment. The country of origin is not explicitly stated in the provided text.

2. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications:

• This information is not explicitly stated in the provided text. For a controlled hypoxia study, the "ground truth" (arterial oxygen saturation, SaO2) is established by directly measuring blood gas samples using a co-oximeter, which is considered the gold standard. The experts involved would typically be medical professionals (e.g., physicians, nurses, lab technicians) trained in arterial blood draws and blood gas analysis.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable in the traditional sense for this type of study. Ground truth (SaO2) is directly measured from arterial blood samples. The document mentions "Two arterial blood samples were then obtained, approximately 30 seconds apart," which indicates a method to confirm stability, but not an adjudication of human-interpreted results.

4. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:

• No, an MRMC study was not done. This type of study (comparative effectiveness of human readers with/without AI assistance) is relevant for AI-powered diagnostic imaging devices. The Avidhrt Sense SpO2 is a direct measurement device, and the clinical study focuses on its accuracy against a gold standard (arterial blood gas analysis) rather than improving human interpretation of complex data.

5. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

• Yes, the clinical study performed (controlled hypoxia study) is a standalone performance assessment of the device's SpO2 measurement accuracy without human interpretation as part of the primary outcome. The device's output (SpO2 readings) was directly compared against the ground truth.

6. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Expert Consensus/Pathology/Outcomes Data: Not used in this context.
• Direct Measurement from Arterial Blood Samples: The ground truth for SpO2 accuracy was established by obtaining arterial blood samples and analyzing them for oxyhemoglobin saturation (SaO2) at controlled, stable levels of induced hypoxia. This is considered the reference standard for oximeter accuracy studies (often referred to as co-oximetry).

7. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• The document does not mention a separate "training set" or its sample size. For traditional medical devices like oximeters, the manufacturing and design process relies on known physiological principles and validated components rather than machine learning models that require distinct training data. If any internal optimization or calibration used patient data, it is not specified as a "training set" in the context of machine learning.

8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

• Not applicable, as no dedicated "training set" (in the machine learning sense) is described or needed for this type of device according to the provided text. The accuracy validation is performed on a discrete test set against a clearly defined gold standard.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Pulse Oximeter is a non-invasive device indicated for use in measuring, displaying, storing and transmitting functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and pulse rate for adult patients. It is intended for spot- check and/or continuous data collection, and not continuous monitoring. It can be used in sleep labs, long-term care, hospitals and home use.

The Pulse Oximeter is a lightweight, portable health finger ring oximeter for home or healthcare facilities. SpO2 measurement technology is based on the developed photoelectron method and circuit design, and Shenzhen Viatom Technology Co., Ltd. developed calculation software. The SpO2 sensor receives the optical signal from the red light and infrared light through the finger into the oximeter. Two emitting tubes (red light diodes and infrared diodes) are located on the inner right side of the sensor, and they can emit red light and infrared. The receiving end is located on the inner left side of the sensor, and it can receive the red light and infrared through the finger. The MCU receives the pulse signal, gets the frequency signal by counting, processes its digital signal, and finally gets the measured SpO2 value. The PR is calculated on average by the above peak intervals of the PR waveform.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a Pulse Oximeter (Models PO2, PO2A, PO2B) and does not contain information about an AI/ML-driven device. Therefore, it is not possible to describe acceptance criteria or a study related to an AI/ML device based on this document.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating the substantial equivalence of the subject pulse oximeter to a predicate pulse oximeter (K191088 Checkme O2 Pulse Oximeter) by meeting established performance standards for pulse oximeters, such as ISO 80601-2-61.

Here's an analysis based on the information available in the document, demonstrating why it doesn't fit the AI/ML framework you've described:

General Device Performance (Pulse Oximeter):

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
   The document does not present a formal "acceptance criteria table" in the context of an AI/ML model. Instead, it provides a comparison table of the subject device's specifications and performance metrics against a predicate device.

   Characteristic	Acceptance Criteria (Implicit from Predicate & Standards)	Reported Device Performance (Subject Device)
   SpO2 Accuracy (70-100%)	±2%	1.77% ARMS
   Pulse Rate Accuracy	±2bpm or ±2% (whichever is greater)	±2bpm or ±2% (whichever is greater)
   SpO2 Measurement Accuracy (ARMS)	≤ 2% (from ISO 80601-2-61)	1.77%
   Work Mode	Spot-check and continuous data collection (not continuous monitoring)	Spot-check and continuous data collection (not continuous monitoring)
   Intended Application Site	Finger	Finger

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

   • Test Set Description: The "clinical validation testing of the SpO2 performance" was conducted on "healthy adult volunteers."
   • Sample Size: The exact number of healthy adult volunteers is not specified in the document.
   • Data Provenance: The document states "Measured values are from a controlled lab study in healthy volunteers." It does not specify the country of origin. The study appears to be prospective, as it involved actively testing subjects with the device.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
   This question is not applicable to this device. For a pulse oximeter, "ground truth" for SpO2 and pulse rate is established using a co-oximeter and ECG (or similar reference standard) on induced hypoxia studies, as per ISO 80601-2-61. There are no "experts" in the AI/ML sense establishing ground truth labels for images or other complex data. The "ground truth" clinical values are collected by qualified personnel trained in conducting such studies.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
   This question is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used in studies involving human interpretation (e.g., radiology reads) to resolve discrepancies and establish a consensus ground truth. For a pulse oximeter, the reference measurements from the co-oximeter are the ground truth, and human adjudication is not part of the process.

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:
   This question is not applicable. The device is not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. No MRMC study was performed or is relevant for this type of device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done:
   This question is not applicable in the context of an AI/ML algorithm. The performance of the pulse oximeter itself (which contains an algorithm to calculate SpO2 and PR from optical signals) was evaluated in a standalone manner against reference standards in the clinical study. The device's performance is inherently "standalone" in its measurement function, as it provides direct numerical outputs.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
   For SpO2 accuracy, the ground truth was arterial oxygen saturation measured by a co-oximeter (from blood samples) during induced hypoxia, as per ISO 80601-2-61. For pulse rate, the ground truth would typically be derived from an electrocardiogram (ECG) monitor. This is a physiological reference standard, not expert consensus or pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set:
   This question is not applicable. The document describes a traditional medical device (pulse oximeter) that uses a pre-defined algorithm based on physical principles (absorption of red and infrared light). It does not mention any "training set" for an AI/ML model. The "algorithm" for SpO2 calculation is based on principles of spectroscopy and physiological models, not machine learning from a dataset in the way a deep learning model would be trained.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   This question is not applicable for the same reasons as #8. There is no training set for an AI/ML model described.

In summary, the provided document details the regulatory clearance for a traditional medical device (pulse oximeter) based on established performance standards, and therefore, the questions tailored for AI/ML device evaluations are generally not relevant.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Aulisa Oximeter Module (2nd Gen.) is indicated for spot-checking and/or continuous monitoring SpO2 and pulse rate of adult and pediatric patients during non-motion and under well-perfused conditions in hospitals, medical facilities, home care, and subacute environments. The parameters derived by the Aulisa Oximeter Module (2nd Gen.) are transmitted to a commercially available mobile device that runs an Aulisa-developed application for display and review.

The Aulisa Oximeter Module (2nd Gen.) is a wireless, wrist-worn Sensor Module (SM) specifically designed to continuously measure and display a patient's pulse rate and oxygen saturation (SpO2). It uses non-invasive red and infrared technology to measure the vital signs and sends the data to an Aulisa-developed software application as cleared through previous Premarket Notification 510(k) submissions under Guardian Angel Rx GA1000 Series Digital Vital Sign Monitoring System (K162580) & Guardian Angel Rx GA2000 Series Digital Vital Sign Monitoring System (K203208) using Bluetooth technology. If the physiological data sent from the subject device to the software application falls outside of pre-set limits or when a technical error is detected, both auditory and visual alarm signals are generated through the software application while the subject device backlight of the vital sign will turn to RED colour as a visual alarm signal, to alert the caregiver.

The sensor module uses Bluetooth technology to interact with a commercial, third-party mobile device whether under iOS or Android operating system, such as iPad, iPhone, Google Pixel ... etc. which is not part of this submission. The vital-signs are transmitted to mentioned mobile device that runs Aulisa-developed application for displayed and reviewed. The software application can be download from an official APP store, such as iOS APP store or Google Play.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the Aulisa Oximeter Module (2nd Gen.). This document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than detailing the full study design and results of performance evaluations in the granular detail requested.

However, based on the information provided, here's an attempt to extract the relevant details for the requested categories:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document mentions "The SpO2 accuracy data were calculated using the Accuracy root-mean-square (ARMS) and the results which indicated that the subject device had an ARMs less than 3 digits during steady-state conditions over the range of 70-100% were in compliance with the specified performance claimed by the manufacturer." This is the primary performance claim related to SpO2 accuracy.

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

• Sample Size: The document only states "The clinical evaluation for SpO2 accuracy was conducted on healthy male and female, light to dark skinned subjects." It does not specify the number of subjects (sample size).
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. It describes the test as a "clinical evaluation," implying a prospective study.

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

This information is not provided in the document. For an oximeter, "ground truth" for SpO2 is typically established by arterial blood gas analysis, which does not involve experts in the same way as, for example, image interpretation.

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

This information is not applicable/provided as the "ground truth" for SpO2 accuracy in oximetry is typically established by a direct comparison to a reference standard (e.g., co-oximetry of arterial blood samples), not by expert 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

This is not applicable. The Aulisa Oximeter Module is a device for directly measuring physiological parameters (SpO2 and pulse rate), not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that requires human readers for interpretation. Its performance is evaluated against reference standards, not human readers.

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

Yes, the SpO2 accuracy evaluation (against ISO 80601-2-61 and FDA Guidance) would be considered a standalone performance test of the device's ability to measure SpO2. The device directly measures and outputs these values, so its performance is inherently "standalone."

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

The ground truth for SpO2 accuracy in oximetry studies is typically established using arterial blood gas analysis (specifically, co-oximetry) as the reference standard, allowing for precise measurement of arterial oxygen saturation. This is implied by the reference to ISO 80601-2-61, which outlines these methodologies.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable/provided. This device is a hardware oximeter module that directly measures physiological signals and processes them to derive SpO2 and pulse rate. It does not appear to involve a machine learning model that would require a separate "training set" in the common sense of AI/ML development. Its "training" would be more akin to calibration and algorithm refinement based on engineering principles and physiological models.

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

As per point 8, this is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device