K Number
K230694
Manufacturer
Date Cleared
2023-04-13

(31 days)

Product Code
Regulation Number
876.1310
Panel
GU
Reference & Predicate Devices
AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
Intended Use

The NaviCam Stomach Capsule is intended for visualization of the stomach of adults (>/=22 years) with BMI

Device Description

The NaviCam Xpress Stomach System is a novel endoscopic capsule imaging system intended to obtain images of the stomach. It differs from passive capsule endoscopy systems in that it uses magnetic fields to allow the position of the capsule within the stomach to be controlled by an operator.

The NaviCam Xpress Stomach System includes the following key components:

    1. Ingestible capsule (CP-US-7005) for obtaining images.
    1. Data recorder (MC-US-1006) for logging image data.
    1. Locator (SB-US-2006) for turning on the capsule and for determining if the capsule is still in the body.
    1. Controller, NaviEC-2000 (MC-US-1002) with the NaviCtrl software that allows the navigation of the capsule within the stomach.
    1. ESView software for review of the images obtained by the capsule and generating reports.
  • Optional Accessory: NaviCam Tether (ES-US-7005) for aiding the capsule in visualizing 6. the esophagus.
AI/ML Overview

This document is a 510(k) summary for a software addition, not a comprehensive clinical study report. Therefore, much of the requested information about clinical performance, ground truth, and expert involvement is not present in this document.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted based on the provided text:

Device: NaviCam Xpress Stomach System (addition of GastroScan feature to NaviCtrl software)

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly list acceptance criteria in terms of specific performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy) for the device's diagnostic capabilities. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating that the software addition does not negatively impact the existing cleared device's performance or introduce new risks. The reported "performance" is that the device "performs as intended based on the non-clinical bench testing."

Acceptance Criteria (Implied by the submission)Reported Device Performance
Software updates function as intendedVerified through Software Verification Testing
Device remains safe and effective (no new risks introduced by software update)Demonstrated by Human Factors Engineering/Usability Testing/Evaluation, performance bench testing, software risk analysis, and cybersecurity FMEA risk analysis.
No changes to existing indications for useThe device retains the same Indications for Use as the predicate device.
No degradation in performance compared to the predicate deviceNot explicitly quantified, but implied by successful non-clinical testing.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

  • Test Set Sample Size: Not specified for any performance testing related to diagnostic accuracy. The non-clinical performance and bench testing would have used specific test cases, but the number of such cases is not provided.
  • Data Provenance: The new software features were evaluated through non-clinical performance and bench testing. This is typically internal testing. No information about country of origin for this testing or whether it was retrospective or prospective is provided. The document states that "No additional Animal and clinical performance testing were conducted."

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

Not applicable for this submission, as no new clinical performance testing was conducted. Ground truth for previous clinical evidence (mentioned in point 9) would have been established, but details are not provided here.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable for this submission, as no new clinical performance testing was conducted.

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

No, a MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done for this submission. The document explicitly states "No additional clinical literature has been provided in this submission." It refers to previous clinical evidence from predicate devices but does not provide details of those studies in this document.

6. Standalone Performance Study

A standalone study of the algorithm's core diagnostic performance (e.g., sensitivity/specificity for detecting stomach abnormalities) was not performed as part of this specific submission. The submission focuses on the safety and efficacy of a software addition to an already cleared device. The "performance bench testing" mentioned would assess the functionality of the new software feature (GastroScan) rather than clinical diagnostic accuracy.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

For this specific submission, the "ground truth" for the non-clinical performance and bench testing would be defined by the expected outcomes of the software functions and hardware interactions as specified in design documents and testing protocols. No clinical ground truth (e.g., pathology, expert consensus on patient cases) was used for this particular submission's evaluation.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

No training set information is provided, as this submission is for a software feature addition to a previously cleared device. It's unlikely that machine learning model training was a primary component of this specific update.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

Not applicable for this submission (see point 8).

Summary of this Submission's Focus:

This 510(k) submission (K230694) is for a software update (GastroScan feature) to an already cleared device (NaviCam Xpress Stomach System, K203192). The primary goal of this submission is to demonstrate that this software addition does not change the indications for use, does not introduce new risks, and does not negatively impact the performance of the existing device. Therefore, the evidence focuses on non-clinical software verification, human factors, and risk analysis, rather than new clinical trials or diagnostic performance metrics. The clinical evidence for the overall system's diagnostic capabilities would have been established in previous submissions (DEN190037 and K203192).

§ 876.1310 Magnetically maneuvered capsule endoscopy system.

(a)
Identification. A magnetically maneuvered capsule endoscopy system consists of an ingestible capsule and magnetic controller and is used for visualization of the stomach and duodenum. The ingestible capsule contains a camera that wirelessly captures images of the mucosa. The magnetic controller is used outside of the patient and is magnetically coupled with the capsule to control its location and viewing direction.(b)
Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:(1) Clinical performance testing with the device under anticipated conditions of use must evaluate visualization of the intended region and document the adverse event profile.
(2) Non-clinical testing data must demonstrate the optical, mechanical, and functional integrity of the device under physically stressed conditions. The following performance characteristics must be tested, and detailed protocols must be provided for each test:
(i) A bite test must be performed to ensure that the capsule can withstand extreme cases of biting;
(ii) A pH resistance test must be performed to evaluate integrity of the capsule when exposed to a physiological relevant range of pH values;
(iii) A battery life test must be performed to demonstrate that the capsule's operating time is not constrained by the battery capacity;
(iv) A shelf life test must be performed to demonstrate that the device performs as intended at the proposed shelf life date;
(v) Optical testing must be performed to evaluate fundamental image quality characteristics such as resolution, field of view, depth of field, geometric distortion, signal to noise ratio, dynamic range, and image intensity uniformity;
(vi) A color performance test must be performed to compare the color differences between the input scene and output image;
(vii) A photobiological safety analysis must be performed based on maximum (worst-case) light exposure to internal gastrointestinal mucosa, and covering ultraviolet, visible, and near-infrared ranges, as appropriate. A mitigation analysis must be provided;
(viii) Performance testing must demonstrate that the viewing software clearly presents the current frame rate, which is either adjustable manually by the user or automatically by the device. Testing must demonstrate that the viewing software alerts the user when the video quality is reduced from nominal due to imaging data communication or computation problems;
(ix) A data transmission test must be performed to verify the robustness of the data transmission between the capsule and the receiver. This test must include controlled signal attenuation for simulating a non-ideal environment; and
(x) Magnetic field strength testing characterization must be performed to identify the distances from the magnet that are safe for patients and users with ferromagnetic implants, devices, or objects.
(3) Software validation, verification, and hazard analysis must be provided.
(4) Electrical safety, thermal safety, mechanical safety, and electromagnetic compatibility testing must be performed.
(5) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
(6) Performance data must validate the reprocessing instructions for the reusable components of the device.
(7) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of any device components labeled sterile.
(8) Human factors testing must demonstrate that the intended users can safely and correctly use the device, based solely on reading the instructions for use.
(9) Clinician labeling must include:
(i) Specific instructions and the clinical and technical expertise needed for the safe use of the device;
(ii) A detailed summary of the clinical testing pertinent to use of the device, including information on effectiveness and device- and procedure-related complications;
(iii) The patient preparation procedure;
(iv) A detailed summary of the device technical parameters;
(v) Magnetic field safe zones;
(vi) A screening checklist to ensure that all patients and operating staff are screened from bringing ferromagnetic implants, devices, or objects near the external magnet;
(vii) Reprocessing instructions for reusable components;
(viii) Shelf life for single use components; and
(ix) Use life for reusable components.
(10) Patient labeling must include:
(i) An explanation of the device and the mechanism of operation;
(ii) The patient preparation procedure;
(iii) A brief summary of the clinical study; and
(iv) A summary of the device- and procedure-related complications pertinent to use of the device.