Search Results

Heartstream Electrode Adapter: For use with Heartstream Defibrillators or Manual Defibrillators with a Quick-Combo® Connection System. For Defibrillation, Monitoring and Pacing.
Heartstream External Defibrillation Pads with Preattached Electrode Adapter: For use with Heartstream Defibrillators or Manual Defibrillators with a Quick-Combo® Connection System. For Defibrillation, Monitoring and Pacing.

Heartstream electrode adapters serve as an interface to allow Heartstream electrodes to be connected to various manual defibrillators for external cardiovascular pacing as well as monitoring and delivery of defibrillation shocks up to 360J.

Heartstream electrode adapters are made of rigid thermoplastic material (or equivalent), with varying configurations depending upon the manual defibrillator for which they are designed. The adapters will be provided as reusable stand-alone accessories (to be used in conjunction with standard Heartstream electrodes) or preattached to a Heartstream electrode set, for single use.

The provided text describes Heartstream Electrode Adapters and their substantial equivalence to predicate devices, focusing on their intended use and technological characteristics. However, it does not contain the specific information required to answer all parts of your request regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance.

Specifically, the document does not include:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Sample size used for a test set, its provenance, or details about the experts involved in establishing ground truth.
• Adjudication methods.
• Information about a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study or standalone algorithm performance.
• Details about the training set's size or how its ground truth was established.

What is provided is a summary of the device's characteristics and a claim of compliance with relevant medical device standards, which demonstrated certain functionalities. This suggests that some level of testing was performed, but the details of that testing, in the format you requested, are absent.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted based on the provided text, and where information is missing:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Not provided. The text mentions "Testing per these standards demonstrated..." but does not specify sample size, data provenance, or whether the tests were on actual patient data or conducted in a lab environment.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• Not provided. Ground truth experts or specific adjudication processes are not mentioned.

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

• Not provided.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. This device is an electrode adapter, a hardware interface, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. This device is a hardware component.

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

• Not explicitly stated in terms of ground truth. The "testing" mentioned refers to compliance with safety and performance standards (e.g., IEC, ANSI/AAMI). "Ground truth" in this context would likely be defined by the physical/electrical parameters specified in those standards and confirmed through engineering tests, rather than clinical outcomes or expert consensus on a diagnostic task.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable / Not provided. This is a hardware device, not a machine learning model requiring a training set.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. This is a hardware device and does not involve a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ForeRunner external defibrillator, is indicated for use on victims of sudden cardiac arrest on whom an apparent lack of circulation is indicated by unconsciousness, absence of breathing and absence of detectable pulse.

The ForeRunner external defibrillator is a semi-automatic external defibrillator incorporating voice prompts to advise the operator of the need to deliver a defibrillating shock. The device is designed to be used by emergency responders in the treatment of cardiac arrest. The device is portable, weighing approximately 4 pounds and measuring approximately 2.5"(H) x 8"(W) x 8.8"(D). The ForeRunner product line consists of the defibrillator, a disposable battery, a pack of disposable single use electrodes, carrying cases and other optional accessories, such as event recording data cards and event review software.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Heartstream ForeRunner External Defibrillator:

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary of Safety and Efficacy, which is a premarket submission to the FDA. While it discusses "testing" and "evaluation," the level of detail provided is typical for a 510(k) and significantly less granular than what would be found in a detailed clinical trial report or a comprehensive technical specification document.

Based on the provided text, the specific details required for your request are largely not explicitly stated. The summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than deeply detailing specific performance metrics against pre-defined acceptance criteria with the rigor of a clinical study report.

Here's what can be extracted and inferred, and where information is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• ECG Recognition Algorithm: "recordings of actual cardiac signals".
  • Sample Size: Not stated.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but "actual cardiac signals" implies clinical data, likely from various sources following recognized standards for defibrillator algorithm testing (e.g., AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines for arrhythmia detection). It's most likely retrospective recordings collected for such purposes.
• Defibrillation Waveform Clinical Trial: "extensive clinical trial."
  • Sample Size: Not stated.
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but "clinical trial" implies prospective human subject data. Country of origin is not specified.

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

• ECG Recognition Algorithm: Not stated. For ECG algorithm validation using "actual cardiac signals," ground truth is typically established by expert cardiologists or electrophysiologists reviewing and annotating the ECG waveforms. The number and specific qualifications are not mentioned.
• Defibrillation Waveform Clinical Trial: For the "extensive clinical trial" assessing defibrillation effectiveness and safety, ground truth for outcomes (e.g., successful defibrillation, return of spontaneous circulation, adverse events) would be established by the treating clinicians and study investigators. The number and specific qualifications are not stated.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not stated for any of the described evaluations. If multiple experts were involved in establishing ground truth (e.g., for ECG signal classification), common methods include consensus, majority vote (e.g., 2+1), or a senior adjudicator. This information is absent.

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, an MRMC study is not mentioned. This device is a semi-automatic external defibrillator designed to provide voice prompts and independently analyze the ECG for shockable rhythms. It's not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that human "readers" (like radiologists or cardiologists interpreting images/signals) would use to improve their own performance. The device itself makes the "decision" to advise a shock based on its algorithm.

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

• Yes, implicitly. The "ECG recognition algorithm" was "evaluated using recordings of actual cardiac signals." This evaluation would assess the algorithm's performance standalone in identifying shockable rhythms, forming the core of the device's automated function. The voice prompts are the "human-in-the-loop" interface, advising the operator to press the shock button, rather than the operator interpreting complex data.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• ECG Recognition Algorithm: The ground truth for classifying "actual cardiac signals" (ECGs) as shockable or non-shockable would be expert consensus by cardiologists/electrophysiologists based on established criteria for arrhythmias like Ventricular Fibrillation (VF) or Pulseless Ventricular Tachycardia (pVT).
• Defibrillation Waveform Clinical Trial: The ground truth for effectiveness and safety in the "extensive clinical trial" would be clinical outcomes data, such as successful termination of arrhythmia, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and documented adverse events.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not stated. The document mentions the evaluation of the algorithm and a clinical trial, but no details are provided about the training data used to develop the ECG recognition algorithm.

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

• Not stated. Assuming a supervised learning approach for the ECG algorithm (which is typical for such devices), the ground truth for the training set would have been established by expert cardiologists or electrophysiologists annotating a large dataset of ECG recordings, similar to how the ground truth for an independent test set would be established.

Ask a specific question about this device