ENLIGHT 1810 is a non-invasive, non-radiation medical device that provides information of local impedance variation within a cross-section of a patient's thorax. This information is presented to the clinician user as an adjunctive tool to other clinical information in order to support the user's assessment of variations in regional air content within a cross section of a patient's lungs.

It is intended for mechanically ventilated adult patients in a hospital setting, whose thorax perimeter is within the range of 78-122 cm.

Device Description

ENLIGHT 1810 is a non-invasive, radiation free medical device intended to provide information on the regional distribution of ventilation in a cross-sectional slice of the thorax.

As the total variation in impedance for the thorax corresponds to the total tidal volume, ENLIGHT 1810 can estimate the percentage of tidal volume in regions of interest (ROI) breath by breath, measuring the contribution of the impedance variation of that ROI to the total impedance of the lung.

Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a technique in which the electrical properties of tissues are estimated from surface electrode voltage measurements and used to provide information on Local Impedance Variation (LIV) within a cross section of a patient's thorax. Considerable electrical impedance variations are imposed on lung tissue by variations in the lung's air content. There is a linear relationship between the variations in air content and the percentage change in lung tissue impedance. This linear relationship is explored in Electrical Impedance Tomography, supporting its use as a tool to support the user's assessment of the variations in regional air content within a cross section of a patient's lungs.

The device may be used on adult patients undergoing either fully controlled or assisted mechanical ventilation in the ICU environment.

AI/ML Overview

Acceptance Criteria and Study for ENLIGHT 1810

The ENLIGHT 1810 is a ventilatory electrical impedance tomograph intended to be an adjunctive tool to other clinical information to support the user's assessment of variations in regional air content within a cross-section of a patient's lungs. As such, the device's acceptance criteria primarily focus on its ability to qualitatively measure regional ventilation distribution and its safety and performance under various conditions.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The direct "acceptance criteria" for clinical performance are not explicitly stated in quantitative metrics (e.g., specific accuracy thresholds) for the human studies. Instead, the studies aim to demonstrate agreement and the qualitative utility of the device in assessing regional ventilation distribution compared to gold standards (CT). The bench tests, however, do have specific quantitative performance parameters.

Acceptance Criterion (Category)	Specific Measure/Performance Parameter	Acceptance Threshold (Implicit/Explicit)	Reported Device Performance (Bench Study)	Reported Device Performance (Clinical Studies)
Safety & Biocompatibility	Biocompatibility (patient-contacting components)	Pass all tests (Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Irritation, Intracutaneous reactivity, Extractables & leachables)	All tests passed	N/A (addressed in non-clinical)
Shelf Life/Reprocessing/Sterility	Reprocessing Validation (single patient use components)	50 reprocessing cycles without impact on functionality	Data supported 50 reprocessing cycles did not impact device functionality	N/A (addressed in non-clinical)
EMC & Electrical Safety	Compliance with AAMI ANSI ES60601-1, ANSI AAMI IEC 60601-1-2	Conformance with standards	Conformed with specified standards	N/A (addressed in non-clinical)
Software	Software functionality and cybersecurity	Met design, implementation, and cybersecurity specifications	Met design, implementation, and cybersecurity specifications	N/A (addressed in non-clinical)
Non-clinical Performance: EIT System Parameters	Signal to Noise Ratio	Not explicitly stated as acceptance, but specification: 45 dB-80 dB	45 dB-80 dB	N/A
	Voltage Accuracy	Not explicitly stated as acceptance, but specification: 99.45%-100%	99.45%-100%	N/A
	Drift	Not explicitly stated as acceptance, but specification: Allan variance converges to zero	Allan variance converges to zero	N/A
	Reciprocity Accuracy	Not explicitly stated as acceptance, but specification: 93%-100%	93%-100%	N/A
	Amplitude Response	Not explicitly stated as acceptance, but specification: 88%-102%	88%-102%	N/A
	Position Error	Not explicitly stated as acceptance, but specification: <5% of radius	<5% of radius	N/A
	Ringing	Not explicitly stated as acceptance, but specification: 2-5 02	2-5 02	N/A
Non-clinical Performance: Plethysmogram Accuracy	Percentage error of plethysmogram	Below 5%	Below 5%	N/A
Non-clinical Performance: Real-time LIV Display	Display of real-time local impedance variation	Display information or error message if not possible	Yes, demonstrated	N/A
Non-clinical Performance: Defibrillation Safety	Safe after defibrillation shocks if belts/electrodes not disconnected	Safety confirmed, but simulation indicated need to disconnect patient	Simulation indicated need to disconnect patient to avoid loss of treatment efficacy. Defibrillator verified energy drawn and safety.	N/A
Clinical Performance (Qualitative Utility)	Agreement for anterior/posterior regional ventilation with CT (healthy volunteers)	Qualitative agreement indicated by small bias and narrow limits of agreement	N/A	Anterior/posterior bias: -0.1, LoA: -0.11-0.1 (healthy volunteers)
	Agreement for right/left regional ventilation with CT (healthy volunteers)	Qualitative agreement indicated by small bias and narrow limits of agreement	N/A	Right/left ROI bias: -0.02, LoA: -0.09 to 0.06 (healthy volunteers)
	No device-related serious adverse events observed in clinical studies	No serious adverse events observed	N/A	No device-related serious adverse events observed
	Qualitative ability to assess regional distribution of ventilation as an "adjunctive tool"	Clinical studies "support the use of the subject device as a qualitative tool"	N/A	Supported by all three human clinical studies

Note on Acceptance Criteria: For the clinical studies, the acceptance criteria are largely implicit, demonstrating "agreement" or "support for use as a qualitative tool" rather than specific numerical thresholds for diagnostic accuracy (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC), as the device is intended as an "adjunctive tool" for qualitative assessment.

2. Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance

Bench Tests:

Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a number of "samples" in the same way as human data. For the EIT system performance, an acrylic cylindrical tank filled with saline was used, with experiments involving "contrast objects" and varying conductivity.
Data Provenance: Laboratory bench testing. No specific country of origin for the data is mentioned for the bench tests.

Animal Study:

Sample Size: 7 swine animals.
Data Provenance: Not specified, but generally animal studies are prospective in design, conducted in a controlled research environment.

Clinical Studies (Human):

Study 1: Comparison between regional distribution of ventilation: EIT vs. CT
- Sample Size: 32 healthy volunteers (out of 39 initially evaluated; 7 excluded).
- Data Provenance: Not specified, but implied to be prospective collection for this study from human volunteers.
Study 2: Assessment of Regional Distribution of Ventilation: Right / Left
- Sample Size: 21 patients with lung transplants (11 single lung, 10 bilateral transplant).
- Data Provenance: Not specified, but implied to be prospective collection for this study from human patients.
Study 3: Assessment of Regional Distribution of Ventilation: Upper / Lower
- Sample Size: 39 patients.
- Data Provenance: This was a retrospective analysis.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

Bench Tests & Animal Study:

The ground truth for bench tests was established through physical measurements using phantoms and analytical calculations.
For the animal study, the ground truth was X-ray computed tomography (CT) measurements of lung ventilation distribution. The number and qualifications of experts involved in running the CT scans or interpreting them for ground truth are not explicitly stated.

Clinical Studies (Human):

Ground Truth Method: The primary ground truth for the clinical studies was X-ray computed tomography (CT) measurements of regional ventilation distribution.
Number and Qualifications of Experts: The document does not explicitly state the number or specific qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience") of the experts involved in establishing the CT ground truth for any of the human studies. However, routinely, CT interpretations for medical research would involve board-certified radiologists.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe a formal "adjudication method" (like 2+1, 3+1 consensus) for the ground truth establishment in any of the studies (bench, animal, or human). The CT images served as the reference standard, and their interpretation is generally a standard clinical practice, though expert consensus for research purposes is often ideal. Its absence is not necessarily a flaw, especially if the CT reads were performed by appropriately qualified individuals.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study comparing human readers with AI assistance vs. without AI assistance was mentioned or conducted. The ENLIGHT 1810 is not described as an AI-powered diagnostic aide that assists human readers in interpreting images; rather, it provides its own "information of local impedance variation" as an adjunctive tool. The studies focus on comparing the device's output to CT, not on how human interpretation changes with or without the device.

6. Standalone Performance

The provided studies predominantly describe the standalone performance of the algorithm. The device, ENLIGHT 1810, generates information on local impedance variation and regional air content distribution. The clinical studies evaluate the direct output of the ENLIGHT 1810 system (EIT measurements of ventilation distribution) against CT. There is no mention of "human-in-the-loop" performance being tested in the context of comparative studies, only that the device is "intended for clinicians to use as an adjunctive tool to other clinical information."

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

Bench Studies: Physical measurements using saline phantoms and analytical calculations.
Animal Studies: X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) measurements of ventilation distribution.
Clinical Studies (Human): X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) measurements of regional ventilation distribution.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not explicitly mention a "training set" in the context of algorithm development or machine learning. The studies described are performance evaluation studies, not studies related to the development or training of the device's underlying algorithms. It's plausible that proprietary data, not disclosed in this document, was used for algorithm development and training, but it is not detailed here.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

Since no "training set" or its size is detailed in the document, how its ground truth was established is also not provided. The document focuses on the validation of the device's performance against established clinical standards (CT) in the context of healthy volunteers and patient populations.

Summary

{0}------------------------------------------------

DE NOVO CLASSIFICATION REQUEST FOR ENLIGHT 1810

REGULATORY INFORMATION

FDA identifies this generic type of device as:

Ventilatory electrical impedance tomograph. A ventilatory electrical impedance tomograph is a prescription non-invasive, non-radiological ventilatory device that provides an assessment of local impedance variation within a cross-section of a patient's thorax.

NEW REGULATION NUMBER: 21 CFR 868.1505

CLASSIFICATION: Class II

PRODUCT CODE: QEB

BACKGROUND

DEVICE NAME: ENLIGHT 1810

SUBMISSION NUMBER: DEN170072

DATE OF DE NOVO: September 29, 2017

TIMPEL Inc. CONTACT: R. Simão Álvares, 356 cj. 41 - Pinheiros São Paulo - SP, 05417-020, Brazil

INDICATIONS FOR USE

It is intended for mechanically ventilated adult patients in a hospital setting, whose thorax perimeter is within the range of 78-122 cm.

LIMITATIONS

The sale, distribution, and use of the ENLIGHT 1810 are restricted to prescription use in accordance with 21 CFR 801.109.

{1}------------------------------------------------

WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS

. Remove the Shaper and open the Electrode Belt prior to patient defibrillation. Protection circuitry of the device mav draw part of the energy delivered by the defibrillator if all electrodes are attached to the patient.
To avoid an electric shock do not touch the Electrode Belt during the ● defibrillation discharge.
. ENLIGHT 1810 should not be used on pregnant or lactating women since the safety and efficiency for such cases have not been verified.
ENLIGHT 1810 should not be used on patients with active implantable devices, . such as pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, or neurostimulators. There is no scientific evidence of safety for the use of this device on patients with active implantable devices.
. ENLIGHT 1810 should not be used in environments with elevated levels of ambient oxygen (such as hyperbaric chambers) oxygen-enriched environments or in the presence of flammable anesthetic gases or any flammable agent. The device may, however, be used in patients receiving oxygen-enriched ventilation.
ENLIGHT 1810 is MR unsafe.
ENLIGHT 1810 should not be used in areas of explosion hazard. .
Do not apply the Electrode Belts or Reference Electrode on injured areas of the . skin (e.g., burns, open wounds, rashes, etc.).
. Do not reuse the Electrode Belts. They are disposable and single patient use. Reusing Electrode Belts on a new patient may result in cross-infection.

PLEASE REFER TO THE LABELING FOR A MORE COMPLETE LIST OF WARNINGS, PRECAUTIONS AND CONTRAINDICATIONS.

DEVICE DESCRIPTION

ENLIGHT 1810 is a non-invasive, radiation free medical device intended to provide information on the regional distribution of ventilation in a cross-sectional slice of the thorax.

The device may be used on adult patients undergoing either fully controlled or assisted mechanical ventilation in the ICU environment.

{2}------------------------------------------------

The system components are shown below:

Image /page/2/Figure/1 description: This image shows a medical setup with a patient connected to various devices. The devices include a Spirometer Flow Sensor, an Addere and Electrode Belt, a Shaper, and a Reference Cable, all connected to the patient's body. On the right side, there is a computer, a Pneumotachograph, a Bioimpedance Measurement System, a Power Supply, and a Device Cart, indicating a comprehensive monitoring and measurement system for the patient's respiratory and physiological functions.

Figure 1. ENLIGHT 1810 System Components

SUMMARY OF NONCLINICAL/BENCH STUDIES

BIOCOMPATIBILITY/MATERIALS

ENLIGHT 1810 includes components (flow sensor) that have externally communicating patient contact via gas pathway for permanent duration. The electrode belt, and shaper have surface contact, intact skin.

The complete device in its final, finished form was subjected to biocompatibility testing in accordance with the FDA guidance document, "Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, 'Biological evaluation of medical devices – Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process."" The following tests were conducted to assess biocompatibility of the device for the externally communicating components for permanent duration:

Cytotoxicity ●
Sensitization ●
Irritation ●
Intracutaneous reactivity ●
Extractables and leachables testing with a risk assessment .

All tests passed. The results demonstrated the biocompatibility of the device.

SHELF LIFE/REPROCESSING/STERILITY

The following components are single patient use only: the electrode belt, shaper, flow sensor, and reference cable. The Addere and reference electrode are single use only and

{3}------------------------------------------------

must be disposed each time after use.

The surface of the ENLIGHT 1810 hardware undergoes low level cleaning, usually with disinfecting wipes similar to equipment in the ICU. No components are provided sterile.

The cleaning procedures for the single patient use were validated following the recommendations of the FDA Guidance Document "Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods and Labeling". Data supported that 50 reprocessing cycles did not impact device functionality.

ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY AND ELECTRICAL SAFETY

The ENLIGHT 1810 was tested in accordance with the following consensus standards and conformed with the following electromagnetic compatibility (EMC), electrical, mechanical and thermal safety standards:

AAMI ANSI ES60601-1:2005/(R)2012 And A1:2012 C1:2009/(R)2012 And ● A2:2010/(R)2012 (Consolidated Text) Medical Electrical Equipment - Part 1: General Requirements For Basic Safety And Essential Performance (IEC 60601-1:2005, MOD)
ANSI AAMI IEC 60601-1-2:2007/(R)2012 Medical Electrical Equipment Part . 1-2: General Requirements For Basic Safety And Essential Performance -Collateral Standard: Electromagnetic Compatibility - Requirements And Tests (Edition 3)
The device was also tested for safe exposure to known sources of EMI with ● medical devices such as MRI, diathermy, and RFID.

MAGNETIC RESONANCE (MR) COMPATIBILITY

The device has not been tested for MRI compatibility and should not be used in an MRI suite.

SOFTWARE

The De Novo request provided adequate software documentation consistent with a "Moderate" level of software concern as discussed in the FDA Guidance Document "Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices," issued May 11, 2005.

Software validation and verification testing demonstrated that the device met its design, implementation, and cybersecurity specifications.

PERFORMANCE TESTING - BENCH

The non-clinical testing for the device consisted of verification and validation testing of hardware and software.

The following bench tests were performed:

Verification of the following specifications of the EIT system was performed . based on experimental saline phantom (proposed by Yasin M et al. (2011).

{4}------------------------------------------------

Evaluation of EIT system performance. Physiological measurement, 32(7), 851), The following performance characteristics were studied using an acrylic cylindrical tank filled with saline and the performance computed using experiments with contrast objects placed in this tank:

о Signal to Noise Ratio: 45 dB-80 dB,
Voltage Accuracy: 99.45%-100%, O
Drift: Allan variance converges to zero, o
o Reciprocity accuracy: 93%-100%,
Amplitude response: 88%-102%, о
Position error: <5% of radius, O
Ringing: 2-5 02. o
Uniform phantom testing to estimate the plethysmogram results for an acrylic ● cylindrical tank filled with saline: The conductivity of the saline solution is set and measured for different values between 0.09 S/m and 0.892 S/m. The difference image of each case is reconstructed using the same reference voltages and the plethysmogram is computed. Fitting (in a least-squares sense) the set of plethysmogram results as a line, the percentage regression residuals are computed. The testing showed that the percentage error of plethysmogram is below 5%.
Display of real time information of local impedance variation by application of high frequency current or display an error message if this is not possible.
. Acquisition Test to verify main functions of the Acquisition Module system: Testing for communication with PIM, command handling, acquisition handling, calibration handling, signal acquisition, hardware handling, file system including configuration recovery and version information of key installed components was completed.
Reconstruction Library to verify that the Image Reconstruction Library output . matches the results determined analytically: The error between reconstructed output meshes and analytically calculated meshes using the same parameters was measured and verified that the error is below a given threshold.
. Defibrillation to demonstrate the EIT is safe after undergoing defibrillation shocks if belts/electrodes are not disconnected during RCP/defibrillation maneuvers: Simulations were conducted to estimate energy drawn by EIT equipment. Tests with defibrillator verified energy drawn and if the equipment keeps safety after undergoing defibrillation. The simulation indicated the need to disconnect the patient from ENLIGHT 1810 for defibrillation to avoid loss of treatment efficacy.
Use Life Testing was conducted to verify the 50 reprocessing cvcles for the single . patient use components.

PERFORMANCE TESTING - ANIMAL

Animal studies were conducted to assess the ability of EIT to quantify the ventilation distribution to anterior/posterior and right/left regions of the lungs as compared to Xray computed tomography (CT) and compare regional ventilation in 4 regions of interest (Anterior / Posterior and Right / Left). Seven swine animals were used. The lung injury was consistent with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 89.9 ± 37.7 mmHg). Agreement between EIT and CT for the

{5}------------------------------------------------

anterior/posterior (bias = -0.02 and limits of agreement = -0.09 to 0.06) as well as for the right/left ROIs (bias = 0.04 and limits of agreement= -0.03 to 0.05%) were observed. The proof-of-concept testing provided supportive data on the qualitative clinical performance of the ENLIGHT 1810 device.

PERFORMANCE TESTING - HUMAN FACTORS

The Human Factors Validation (HFV) test was performed to validate all safetycritical and associated essential tasks that are required to use the ENLIGHT® 1810. The first objective of this HFV test was to provide objective performance and subjective interview data to validate those representative users can use the ENLIGHT® 1810 safely when used under representative conditions. A second objective was to verify the adequacy of the Instructions for Use (IFU) and Reference Guide to support user performance and to assess the comprehension of warnings provided in these documents to mitigate risks associated with hazards identified in the ENLIGHT®

The intended users of ENLIGHT® 1810 are healthcare professionals responsible for a patient's ventilation, analyzing the monitored physiological parameters and determining the appropriate ventilatory management. There were 15 users per group. The supplementary Human factors/Usability engineering (HF/UE) reports contained the descriptions of Human factors processes and appropriate validating testing results. data collection. root-cause analyses and conclusion to establish that the ENLIGHT®1810 device and the associated labeling and training are adequate for the intended users, its intended uses, and use environments.

SUMMARY OF CLINICAL INFORMATION

Three clinical studies were conducted to assess the ability of EIT to quantify the ventilation distribution to anterior/posterior and right/left regions of the lungs as compared to X-ray computed tomography (CT) and compare regional ventilation in 4 regions of interior / Posterior and Right / Left).

1. Comparison between regional distribution of ventilation: EIT vs. CT
  Method: This study evaluated 32/39 healthy volunteers where the ventilation distribution was compared to CT. EIT and CT images were acquired simultaneously in supine, prone and laterals decubitus during 20 seconds of end-expiration and end-inspiration pause. Four thoracic regions of interest (ROI) were defined: anterior, posterior, right, and left. On EIT images, the ROIs represent the division of the thorax in two equal halves both in the anterior/posterior and in the right/left direction. The CT's ROIs were defined based on the midpoint of the lungs in the vertical and horizontal directions.

Endpoints: Evaluated the Ventilation distribution to anterior / posterior and right / left regions of the thorax and assessed the agreement of these distributions to those measured with CT using the same thoracic regions of interest (ROI).

{6}------------------------------------------------

Results: Seven subjects were excluded from the analysis. The statistical evaluations were descriptive, where a Bland-Altman type difference plot was used to compare EIT vs CT with 95% limits of agreement for EIT ventilation distribution to regions of interest in both anterior posterior and right/left. The study showed that in 32 healthy volunteers the anterior/posterior bias was -0.1 and the limits of agreement was -0.11-0.1 and for the right/left ROI the bias was -0.02 and the limits of agreement was -0.09 to 0.06.

1. Assessment of Regional Distribution of Ventilation: Right / Left
  Methods: This study assessed 21 patients with lung transplants (11 single lung, 10 bilateral transplant). Regional distribution of ventilation to the right and left lungs was assessed with ENLIGHT during 30 cycles of regular, spontaneous breathing in five different body positions: seated, supine, right lateral, left lateral, and prone. CT scans were performed at total lung capacity in spontaneously breathing patients.

Endpoint: Percent ventilation to the 'best lung' according to EIT.

Results: On average, during tidal ventilation and in the supine position, the best lung received 57±11% in bilateral transplants, 79±12% in unilateral transplants for emphysema, and 83±13% in unilateral transplants for fibrosis.

{7}------------------------------------------------

Image /page/7/Figure/0 description: The image shows CT scans and EIT ventilation maps of patients with lung conditions, including emphysema and fibrosis, and a bar graph comparing best lung ventilation across different conditions and body positions. The CT scans and ventilation maps illustrate the distribution of ventilation in patients who underwent bilateral lung transplants, as well as those with single lung transplants. The bar graph titled "Best Lung Ventilation" compares ventilation in unilateral emphysema, unilateral fibrosis, and bilateral transplant cases, considering seated, supine, and prone positions. The ventilation values range from approximately 0.5 to 0.9, with variations observed across different conditions and body positions.

De Novo Summary (DEN170072)

{8}------------------------------------------------

1. Assessment of Regional Distribution of Ventilation: Upper / Lower
  Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of 39 patients who were evaluated for the regional distribution of ventilation to the anterior and posterior halves at different PEEP levels.

Endpoint: The proportion of ventilation to the anterior region, obtained using ENLIGHT, at the highest and lowest PEEP levels available for each patient.

Results: The regional distribution of ventilation to the anterior half of the lung was also 35 ± 6% during the highest PEEP and 62± 8% (P< 0.001) during the lowest PEEP.

Conclusion:

The clinical studies support the use of the subject device as a qualitative tool that provides information of local impedance variation within a cross-section of a patient's thorax. The images in these studies provide qualitative information; however, adequate validation has not been provided for quantitative measures. The clinical studies, support the use of the device as a qualitative tool that should only be used as an adjunct to support the user's assessment of variations in regional air content within a cross section of a patient's lungs based on other clinical information.

Pediatric Extrapolation

In this De Novo request, existing clinical data were not leveraged to support the use of the device in a pediatric patient population.

LABELING

The labeling (User Instructions) meets the requirements of 21 CFR 801.109 for prescription devices. The user instructions include the following:

{9}------------------------------------------------

1. A description and function of all components of the system and instructions regarding how to use each component;
1. A description of how to use the device safely, information on signal acquisition. use of flow sensor, electrode belt and reference electrode;
1. The available images screens and their interpretations;
Cleaning instructions for the main unit, which is reusable; 4.
1. Information regarding maintenance and replacement of the main unit;
1. A warning that the device should not be used with defibrillator;
Contraindications listing patient comorbidities that would preclude use of the 7. system; and
1. A troubleshooting guide.

RISKS TO HEALTH

The table below identifies the risks to health that may be associated with use of the ventilatory electrical impedance tomograph and the measures necessary to mitigate these risks.

Identified Risk	Mitigation Measures
Adverse tissue reaction	Biocompatibility evaluation
Electromagnetic interference	Electromagnetic compatibility testing
with other devices
Infection	Reprocessing validation, and
	Labeling
Inaccurate images due to either	Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis;
device hardware or software	Non-clinical performance testing; and
failure/malfunction	Labeling
Electrical shock injury or	Electrical, thermal, and mechanical safety testing;
thermal injury	Software verification, validation and hazard analysis;
	Non-clinical performance testing; and
	Labeling

SPECIAL CONTROLS:

In combination with the general controls of the FD&C Act, the ventilatory electrical impedance tomograph is subject to the following special controls:

1. The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
1. Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use, including the following:
- Characterization of device parameters, including signal to noise ratio, voltage a. accuracy, drift, reciprocity accuracy, amplitude response, position error, and ringing:
- b. Real time evaluation of local impedance variation;
- Plethysmogram accuracy testing; and C.
- d. Use life testing of reusable components.

{10}------------------------------------------------

1. Performance data must validate reprocessing instructions for any reusable components of the device.
1. Performance data must demonstrate the electrical, thermal, and mechanical safety and the electromagnetic compatibility of the device.
1. Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
1. Labeling must include the following:
- a. Guidance for interpretation of the images generated;
- b. A warning that the device should be removed before use of a defibrillator, or defibrillator interaction information based on defibrillator performance testing with the device;
- c. A use life for any reusable components; and
- d. Instructions for reprocessing any reusable components.

BENEFIT/RISK DETERMINATION

The risks of the device are based on nonclinical laboratory studies as well as data collected in the clinical studies described above. The device exhibited an acceptable safety profile in the clinical study that was conducted. No device-related serious adverse events were observed.

The ENLIGHT 1810 risks include incorrect placement of electrode belts on patient, application of belt over broken skin, electrical current leakage from device to patient, use of contaminated components, device failure, incorrect battery replacement, incorrect interpretation of EIT measurements, use of expired Addere, disconnection of reference electrodes during use, incorrect data feed to the device by the user, skewed data due to EMI interference, misinterpretation of data due to nonstandard thorax profile (malformation, surgery etc.), water between electrode belt and patient's skin and incorrect flow sensor placement. Although these device malfunctions or device-related adverse events were not seen in the clinical studies these risks are associated with most devices utilized in critical care settings.

The device is a qualitative tool that compares ventilation differences between the right and left lung. This is useful in a critical care setting for the evaluation of a sudden change in ventilation such as pneumothorax or mucous plugging and in evaluating the respiratory status if there is a sudden change in the patient's clinical status on a ventilator. Risks include incorrect decision making; however, the labeling clearly states that this is not to be used for sole decision-making and will be used in conjunction with other modalities in the critical care setting.

Patient Perspectives

This submission did not include specific information on patient perspectives for this device.

Benefit/Risk Conclusion

In conclusion, given the available information above, the data support that the probable benefits outweigh the probable risks for the ENLIGHT 1810 as an adjunctive tool to other clinical information to support the user's assessment of variations in regional air content within a cross section of a patient's lungs. The device provides benefits and the risks can be mitigated using general controls and the identified special controls.

{11}------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION

The De Novo request for the ENLIGHT 1810 is granted and the device is classified under the following:

Product Code: QEB Device Type: Ventilatory electrical impedance tomograph Class: II Regulation: 21 CFR 868.1505

Regulation Number and Section

§ 868.1505 Ventilatory electrical impedance tomograph.

(a)
Identification. A ventilatory electrical impedance tomograph is a prescription non-invasive, non-radiological ventilatory device that provides an assessment of local impedance variation within a cross-section of a patient's thorax.(b)
Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:(1) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(2) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use, including the following:
(i) Characterization of device parameters, including signal-to-noise ratio, voltage accuracy, drift, reciprocity accuracy, amplitude response, position error, and ringing;
(ii) Real time evaluation of local impedance variation;
(iii) Plethysmogram accuracy testing; and
(iv) Use life testing of reusable components.
(3) Performance data must validate reprocessing instructions for any reusable components of the device.
(4) Performance data must demonstrate the electrical, thermal, and mechanical safety and the electromagnetic compatibility of the device.
(5) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
(6) Labeling must include the following:
(i) Guidance for interpretation of the images generated;
(ii) A warning that the device should be removed before use of a defibrillator, or defibrillator interaction information based on defibrillator performance testing with the device;
(iii) A use life for any reusable components; and
(iv) Instructions for reprocessing any reusable components.