Search Results

The Nasal-Aire II Pediatric interface is an accessory to positive pressure ventilation devices (i.e. CPAP, Bi-Level) for both adult and pediatric patients aged seven and older or weighing more than 40 lbs, in the hospital, clinic or home environments.

The Nasal-Aire II Pediatric is intended for single-patient re-use in the home environment and multiple-patient re-use in the hospital / institutional environment.

The Nasal-Aire II Pediatric has been modified from the Nasal-Aire II to meet the requirements of the pediatric population and adults requiring smaller sizes to achieve the proper fit and comfort. The Nasal-Aire II Pediatric provides therapy through the nose only.

The Nasal-Aire II Pediatric interface is an accessory to positive pressure ventilation devices (i.e. CPAP, Bi-Level) for both adult and pediatric patients aged seven and older or weighing more than 40 lbs, in hospital, clinic, or home environments.

For homecare applications, the Nasal-Aire II Pediatric may be reused multiple times by a single patient. For institutional applications (i.e. sleep lab, other clinical settings), the interface may be reused multiple times by multiple patients.

The Nasal-Aire II Pediatric interface has a soft nasal cannula to form a seal with the nasal openings. The nasal cannula has two nasal inserts and has integrated exhalation ports. The interface also has tubing, connectors to attach the tubing to the nasal cannula, and a swivel coupling that allows the interface to connect to the ventilation device. Headgear is attached to the device to secure the interface on the patient.

There are five nasal cannula sizes available, ranging from A (largest) to E (smallest).

The device is available by prescription only.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the Nasal-Aire II Pediatric device, which is an accessory to positive pressure ventilation devices. It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than presenting a study of the device's performance against specific acceptance criteria.

Therefore, many of the requested items related to acceptance criteria and specific study details (like sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth establishment) are not present in the provided text for the Nasal-Aire II Pediatric device.

The document states that "functional testing relative to the intended use of the Nasal-Aire II Pediatric show that it is as safe and effective as the predicate devices." However, it does not detail what specific functional tests were performed, what the acceptance criteria for those tests were, or what the reported performance was.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be answered based on the provided text:

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

• Cannot provide. The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or report specific performance metrics for the Nasal-Aire II Pediatric. It broadly claims "functional testing" shows it is "as safe and effective as the predicate devices," but no details are given.

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

• Cannot provide. No information about a specific test set, its sample size, or data provenance is mentioned.

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)

• Cannot provide. No ground truth establishment for a test set is discussed.

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

• Cannot provide. No information on adjudication methods is present.

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

• Cannot provide. This is a medical device (nasal cannula), not an AI/imaging device that would typically involve human readers or MRMC studies.

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

• Cannot provide. This device is a passive accessory and does not involve an algorithm.

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

• Cannot provide. No ground truth is discussed beyond the general assertion that functional testing supports safety and effectiveness.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Cannot provide. No training set is mentioned as this is not an AI/machine learning device.

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

• Cannot provide. No training set or ground truth establishment for a training set is mentioned.

Summary of available information related to equivalence:

• Device Trade Name: Nasal-Aire II Pediatric
• Common/Usual Name: Accessory to Non-Continuous Ventilator
• Predicate Devices:
  • K060105: Kidsta Mask System (ResMed)
  • K022465: Nasal-Aire II (Innomed Technologies Inc. - likely the original version from which this pediatric version was modified)
  • K002001: Breeze Sleepgear with Nasal Pillows (Puritan Bennett Corp.)
  • K072993: Reusable Headrest® with Nasal Seal (AEIOMed, Inc.)
  • Unknown K number: Infant Nasal CPAP Set (Hudson RCI)
• Conclusion on Equivalence (from the submission): The Nasal-Aire II Pediatric device is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices in intended use, environment of use, patient population, and frequency of use. Its basic method of operation and design are also substantially equivalent to the predicates. Materials information and functional testing relative to the intended use of the Nasal-Aire II Pediatric show that it is as safe and effective as the predicate devices.
• Intended Use (as stated by FDA in the letter): The Nasal-Aire II Pediatric interface is an accessory to positive pressure ventilation devices (i.e. CPAP, Bi-Level) for both adult and pediatric patients aged seven and older or weighing more than 40 lbs, in the hospital, clinic or home environments. Intended for single-patient re-use in the home environment and multiple-patient re-use in the hospital / institutional environment.

This 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating that the new pediatric version of the Nasal-Aire II maintains the same safety and effectiveness as already cleared predicate devices through design similarity and general functional testing, rather than presenting a performance study against specific, novel acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Hybrid NE Mask is intended to provide a patient interface for application of noninvasive ventilation. The mask is to be used as an accessory to ventilators that have adequate alarms and safety systems for ventilator failure, and which are intended to administer positive pressure ventilation. The mask will be offered in a disposable version and a multiuse version. It is intended for use on adult patients (>30 kg), who are appropriate candidates for noninvasive ventilation.

(Applies to the standard version):

For homecare applications, the Hybrid NE Mask may be reused multiple times by a single patient. For institutional applications (i.e. hospital or other clinical settings), this interface may be reused multiple times by multiple patients.

(Applies to the Disposable version): The RespCare Hybrid NE Mask Disposable is a single patient, single use interface.

A specialized interface for Non-Invasive Ventilation. It will be modeled after the RespCare Face Mask (K052227), with intentional exhalation features removed for use with ventilators equipped with an active safety valve.

This K062019 submission describes a medical device, the RespCare Hybrid NE Mask, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than presenting a study demonstrating its performance against specific acceptance criteria. Therefore, the information typically requested for a performance study (acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert ground truth, etc.) is not present in this document.

The document is a 510(k) summary for a new medical device submission to the FDA. The purpose of a 510(k) is to demonstrate that the new device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device. This is done by comparing the new device's intended use, technological characteristics, and safety and effectiveness information to those of the predicate. It does not typically involve a clinical study with detailed performance metrics and acceptance criteria in the way a PMA (Pre-Market Approval) submission might.

Here's an breakdown of why the requested information isn't available based on the provided text, and what is available:

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

• Not Applicable. The document explicitly states, "Materials information and functional testing relative to the intended use of the RespCare Hybrid NE Mask show that it is as safe and effective as the predicate devices." This is a summary statement of the testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence, but it does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed performance results in the format requested. The detailed functional testing data and acceptance criteria would have been included in the full 510(k) submission, but are not part of this publicly available summary.

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

• Not Applicable. No human clinical study or "test set" in the context of an algorithm's performance is described. The "functional testing" mentioned would likely refer to bench testing (e.g., flow resistance, sealing capabilities) rather than patient data.

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 Applicable. No "ground truth" establishment by experts is mentioned, as there is no diagnostic or interpretive task being performed by the device that would require such validation.

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

• Not Applicable. No test set or expert adjudication is described.

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. The device is a face mask for ventilation, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool. Therefore, an MRMC study is irrelevant.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device (a mask), not an algorithm.

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

• Not Applicable. As a face mask, the concept of "ground truth" as it applies to diagnostic devices or algorithms is not relevant. The "ground truth" for a mask would be its physical properties and performance against engineering standards (e.g., seal integrity, pressure drop).

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. The device is a physical product and does not involve machine learning or a "training set."

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

• Not Applicable. No training set is used.

Summary of what is presented in the provided document:

The provided document, K062019, is a 510(k) summary for the RespCare Hybrid NE Mask. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices, rather than presenting a performance study with specific acceptance criteria.

Key information from the document:

• Device Name: RespCare Hybrid NE Mask
• Intended Use: "The Hybrid NE Mask is intended to provide a patient interface for application of noninvasive ventilation. The mask is to be used as an accessory to ventilators that have adequate alarms and safety systems for ventilator failure, and which are intended to administer positive pressure ventilation. The mask will be offered in a disposable version and a multiuse version. It is intended for use on adult patients (>30 kg), who are appropriate candidates for noninvasive ventilation."
• Predicate Devices:
  • K030515 – Hans Rudolph 7500 Vmask
  • K023135 - Respironics Image3 SE
• Basis for Substantial Equivalence: The document states the device is "essentially similar to the legally marketed predicate interfaces listed above in function, intended use, materials, and features." The essential difference is identified as "the shape of the interface." It further clarifies equivalence in "intended use, environment of use, patient population, and frequency of use," and that its "basic method of operation and design is also equivalent to the predicates."
• Evidence of Safety and Effectiveness: "Materials information and functional testing relative to the intended use of the RespCare Hybrid NE Mask show that it is as safe and effective as the predicate devices." (Note: specific details of this testing, including acceptance criteria, are not provided in this summary but would be in the full submission).

This submission is purely for regulatory clearance based on substantial equivalence to existing devices, meaning it relies on the safety and effectiveness established for the predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device