(177 days)
The IMRACT Pager System is intended to be used for the annunciation of events within a zone coverage area that is secondary to the primary care that is provided. Primary care via the central station, patient bedside monitor, or telemetry system remains unchanged. This device is intended to be used within the hospital/facility environment.
The IMPACT pager is intended for the annunciation of events to provide zone information that is secondary to the primary care provided. It provides specific information within a zone and alerts or draws an identified individual's aftention to a defined patient condition in a timely manner. Primary care via the central station, telemetry system, or patient bedside monitor remains unchanged by the addition of the IMPACT pager.
The provided 510(k) summary for the Marquette IMPACT Pager System focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a performance study with detailed acceptance criteria and standalone performance for a medical device that makes diagnostic or treatment decisions.
The IMPACT Pager System is described as a device for "annunciation of events to provide zone information that is secondary to the primary care provided." It is explicitly stated that "Primary care via the central station, telemetry system, or patient bedside monitor remains unchanged by the addition of the IMPACT pager." This indicates that the device does not perform primary diagnostic or therapeutic functions, but rather relays information.
Therefore, the typical metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, or MRMC study results, which are common for AI/ML-driven diagnostic or prognostic devices, are not applicable or reported for this type of device. The "performance" here refers more to reliable functionality and information transmission.
Here's the breakdown of the information that is available based on the provided text, and where some requested information is not applicable (N/A) or not provided:
Acceptance Criteria and Study for Marquette IMPACT Pager System (K971868)
The submission indicates that the device is a "pager system" for "annunciation of events" and is "secondary to the primary care provided." The performance testing focused on functional correctness and safety, rather than diagnostic accuracy.
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Acceptance Criteria Category | Specific Acceptance Criteria (Inferred from text) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Safety and Electrical/Mechanical | Compliance with U.L. listing/classification for non-patient environment components (CardioPager Server, Micro Serial Server, Pager Transmitter). | U.L. Listing or Classification reviewed and found appropriate. |
| Compliance with specified electrical and mechanical performance and safety tests by Marquette's reliability group. | Additional electrical and mechanical performance and safety tests were performed as specified and included in the submission. | |
| Functional Performance (Information Accuracy) | Correct replication of arrhythmia type, heart rate, and waveform information from the primary monitoring system at the pager. | Information at the pager was "checked for correctness" during functional performance testing. The "CardioPager replicates arrhythmia type, heart rate, and waveform information obtained from the monitoring system via Ethernet." |
| Administrator Application | Proper functioning of the administrator application running on the server. | The test plan "fully exercised the administrator application running on the server." |
| Alarm Monitoring Services | Proper operation of the Unity™ alarm monitoring services of the CardioPager server. | The test plan "fully exercised...the operation of the Unity™ alarm monitoring services of the CardioPager server." |
| Intended Use | Device meets the requirements of its intended use. | "Validation test results indicated that the IMPACT Pager System met the requirements of its intended use." (Intended use is defined as secondary annunciation of events within a zone coverage area, within a hospital/facility environment.) |
| Substantial Equivalence | As safe and effective, and performs substantially equivalent to the ADU/ Pager-LAN System (K962827). | "Marquette Medical Systems has demonstrated that use of the IMPACT Pager System is as safe and effective, and performs substantially equivalent to use of the ADU/ Pager-LAN System." FDA concurred with substantial equivalence. |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
- Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly specified. The text mentions "functional performance testing" and "validation test results" indicating a test set was used, but the number of test cases, durations, or specific scenarios are not provided in the summary.
- Data Provenance: Not specified, but likely internal testing performed by Marquette Medical Systems. As it's a pager system, the "data" would be the simulated or live alarm/event information being transmitted.
- Retrospective/Prospective: Neither term is used. The testing described appears to be prospective functional and safety testing conducted by the manufacturer.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts
- Number of Experts: Not applicable or not specified. Given the nature of the device (a pager for event annunciation), "ground truth" would be the correct transmission of information. The "correctness" was likely verified against the source (primary monitoring system) by technical personnel, not by medical experts establishing a diagnostic ground truth.
- Qualifications of Experts: N/A for diagnostic "ground truth." Marquette's "Technical Coordinator" reviewed UL listings, and "reliability group" performed safety tests.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
- Adjudication Method: Not applicable or not explicitly described. Since the "truth" is the direct replication of information from a primary system, adjudication by multiple human readers for diagnostic accuracy is not relevant to this device's function.
5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done
- MRMC Study: No, an MRMC study was not done. This type of study is for evaluating the impact of AI on human reader performance for diagnostic tasks, which is not the function of a pager system.
- Effect Size of Human Readers Improve with AI vs. without AI assistance: Not applicable.
6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done
- Standalone Performance: While the "CardioPager replicates arrhythmia type, heart rate, and waveform information..." and "this information was compared for correctness during the functional performance testing," this isn't a "standalone" performance in the AI/ML sense (e.g., reporting sensitivity/specificity of an algorithm making a diagnosis). It's a functional test of the system's ability to accurately transmit information. No specific metrics like sensitivity or specificity for its own "interpretations" (as it doesn't interpret, it replicates) are provided. The "algorithm" here is essentially the software logic for data transmission and display.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
- Type of Ground Truth: The ground truth for the functional performance testing was the output of the primary patient monitoring system (e.g., "arrhythmia type, heart rate, and waveform information obtained from the monitoring system"). The pager's output was compared against this primary source for correctness.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
- Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable / Not specified. This device does not appear to be an AI/ML device that requires a training set in the conventional sense. Its function is information relay, not learning from data to perform a diagnostic or predictive task.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
- How Ground Truth for Training Set Was Established: Not applicable. There is no mention of a training set or an AI/ML component that requires training data in the provided summary.
{0}------------------------------------------------
14718608
NOV 1 3 1997
510(k) Summary of Safety and Effectiveness
1. Submitter
Marquette Medical Systems 8200 West Tower Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53223 USA
Establishment Registration Number 2124823
Contact Name / Telephone Number Dianne Schmitz Corporate Regulatory Affairs Marquette Medical Systems
Phone: (414) 362-3230
Date: 8 May 97
General Information 2.
Trade/Proprietary Name
Marquette's name for this device is IMPACT (Informing Mobile Personnel and Care Tracking) Pager System.
Common/Usual Name
This device is commonly known as a pager.
Device Classification
This device is unclassified according to a review performed of the CDRH Manual -FDA 91-4246 Classification Names for Medical Devices and In Vitro Diagnostic Products, as well as the Diogenes - The 510(k) Register and database.
Performance Standards
Performance standards (Section 514 of the Act) have not yet been established for the device that is the subject of this premarket notification submission.
Legally Marketed Predicate Device(s) 3.
The legally marketed predicate product is the ADU/ Pager-LAN System, K962827 .
র্বা Device Description and Intended Use
The IMPACT pager is intended for the annunciation of events to provide zone information that is secondary to the primary care provided. It provides specific information within a zone and alerts or draws an identified individual's aftention to a defined patient condition in a timely manner. Primary care via the central station, telemetry system, or patient bedside monitor remains unchanged by the addition of the IMPACT pager.
{1}------------------------------------------------
Test Summary & Conclusion 6.
The CardioPager Server, Micro Serial Server, and the Pager Transmitter are not used in the patient environment. These devices are purchased from the manufacturer with appropriate U.L. listing or classification on the device and/or the external power modules. The devices' U.L. Listing or Classification was reviewed by Marquette's Technical Coordinator and found to be appropriate. Marquette's reliability group also performed additional electrical and mechanical performance and safety tests which were specified and included in the submission.
While the CardioPager system functions as a secondary enunciator of alams, the bedside monitor and central station make up the patient monitoring system. Patient waveform acquisition, determination of alarm conditions, and alam notifications are primary functions of the patient monitoring system, which has been previously verified for accuracy. Because the CardioPager replicates arthythmia type, heart rate, and waveform information obtained from the monitoring system via Ethemet, this Information was compared for correctness during the functional performance testing.
Functional performance testing of the CardioPager system was accomplished and provided in the submission. This test plan fully exercised the administrator application running on the server as well as the operation of the Unity™ alarm monitoring services of the CardioPager server. Additionally, the information at the pager was checked for correctness, as mentioned above.
Validation test results indicated that the IMPACT Pager System met the requirements of its intended use. Again, this information is secondary to the primary care provided. Primary care remains unchanged by the addition of the IMPACT pager.
Marquette Medical Systems has demonstrated that use of the IMPACT Pager System is as safe and effective, and performs substantially equivalent to use of the ADU/ Pager-LAN System.
{2}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/2/Picture/2 description: The image shows a partial view of a document with a logo and some text. On the left side, there is a logo that appears to be a stylized representation of human faces or profiles. To the right of the logo, there is some text, but it is not fully visible in the image. The text seems to be part of a heading or title, possibly related to the organization or department associated with the logo.
Food and Drug Administration 9200 Corporate Boulevard Rockville MD 20850
1 3 1997
Ms. Dianne Schmitz Marquette Medical Systems 8200 West Tower Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53223
Re : K971868 IMPACT (Informing Mobile Personnel and Care Tracking) Pager System Regulatory Class: III (three) Product Code: 74 MSX Dated: September 5, 1997 Received: September 8, 1997
Dear Ms. Schmitz:
We have reviewed your Section 510(k) notification of intent to market the device referenced above and we have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments, or to devices that have been reclassified in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general controls provisions of the Act. The general controls provisions of the Act include requirements for annual reqistration, listing of devices, good manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions aqainst misbranding and adulteration.
If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (Premarket Approval), it may be subject to such additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 895. A substantially equivalent determination assumes compliance with the current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements, as set forth in the Quality System Regulation (QS) for Medical Devices: General regulation (21 CFR Part 820) and that, through periodic (QS) inspections, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will verify such assumptions. Failure to comply with the GMP regulation may result in regulatory action. In addition, FDA may publish further announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register. Please note: this response to your premarket notification submission does not affect any obligation you might have under sections 531 through 542 of the Act for devices under the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions, or other Federal laws or regulations.
{3}------------------------------------------------
Page 2 - Ms. Dianne Schmitz
This letter will allow you to begin marketing your device as described in your 510(k) premarket notification. The FDA finding of substantial ----------equivalence of your device to a legally marketed predicate device results in a classification for your device and thus, permits your device to proceed to the market.
If you desire specific advice for your device on our labeling regulation (21 CFR Part 801 and additionally 809.10 for in vitro diagnostic devices), please contact the Office of Compliance at (301) 594-4648. Additionally, for questions on the promotion and advertising of your device, please contact the Office of Compliance at (301) 594-4639. Also, please note the requlation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21 CFR 807.97). Other general information on your responsibilities under the Act may be obtained from the Division of Small Manufacturers Assistance at its toll-free number (800) 638-2041 or (301) 443-6597 or at its internet address "http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/dsmamain.html".
Sincerely yours
Thomas J. Callahon
Thomas J. Callahan, Ph.D. Director Division of Cardiovascular, Respiratory, and Neurological Devices Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{4}------------------------------------------------
510(k) Number (if known):
Unknown; 510(k) filed on May 16, 1997
Stop(s) Number (if known)
IMPACT (Informing Mobile Personnel and Care Tracking) Device Name: Pager System
Indications For Use:
The IMRACT Pager System is intended to be used for the annunciation of events within a zone coverage area that is secondary to the primary care that is provided. Primary care via the central station, patient bedside monitor, or telemetry system remains unchanged.
This device is intended to be used within the hospital/facility environment.
(PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - CONTINUE ON ANOTHER PAGE IF NEEDED)
Concurrence of CDRH, Office of Device Evaluation (ODE)
Chaison Formen for Arc
(Division Sign-Off) Division of Cardiovascular, Respiratory, and Neurological Devices
510(k) Number
Over-The-Counter Use__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Optional Format 1-2-96)
Prescription Use
(Per 21 CFR 801.109)
Image /page/4/Picture/16 description: The image shows a sequence of numbers. The numbers are 000005. There are five zeros followed by a five.
§ 870.2300 Cardiac monitor (including cardiotachometer and rate alarm).
(a)
Identification. A cardiac monitor (including cardiotachometer and rate alarm) is a device used to measure the heart rate from an analog signal produced by an electrocardiograph, vectorcardiograph, or blood pressure monitor. This device may sound an alarm when the heart rate falls outside preset upper and lower limits.(b)
Classification. Class II (performance standards).