Search Results

The device is intended to be used with ECG. The lead wire is used to connect electrodes placed at appropriate sites on the patient to ECG for general monitoring and/or diagnostic evaluation by health care professional.

The device is used to transmit ECG signals from electrodes which are affixed to the patient's body for both diagnostic and monitoring purposes. Each lead wire is attached to ECG patient electrodes. The lead wire connector plugs into one end of the trunk cable which are plug into an ECG monitor. The proposed devices are available in disposable and reusable two types.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for Patient Cables and Leadwires, Disposable ECG Leadwires. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on non-clinical testing and does not include a study proving that the device meets specific performance acceptance criteria in the context of a clinical or standalone effectiveness study.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for describing acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance are not applicable based on the provided document.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what cannot:

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

The document does not present explicit performance acceptance criteria in the format typically used for studies evaluating a device's diagnostic or monitoring accuracy against a specific metric. Instead, it refers to compliance with safety and performance standards for non-clinical aspects.

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. The document describes non-clinical tests (biocompatibility, electrical safety, functional performance) on the device itself or its materials, not studies with a "test set" of 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. There is no test set or ground truth established by medical experts for evaluating clinical performance.

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

Not applicable. No test set requiring expert adjudication is mentioned.

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. This device is an ECG leadwire, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool. No MRMC study was conducted.

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

Not applicable. This device is an ECG leadwire, which facilitates signal transmission, not an algorithm.

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

Not applicable. For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the requirements of the standards (e.g., cytotoxicity assays, electrical safety measurements, material property tests).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/algorithm-based device requiring a training set.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/algorithm-based device requiring a training set.

Summary of the Study (as described in the document):

The "study" described in this 510(k) summary consists of non-clinical tests performed to verify that the proposed device (Patient Cables and Leadwires, Disposable ECG Leadwires) meets design specifications and is substantially equivalent to a predicate device (K120010).

• Type of Study: Non-clinical bench testing.
• Purpose: To demonstrate compliance with recognized industry standards for biocompatibility (ISO 10993 series), electrical safety (IEC 60601-1), and functional performance of ECG leadwires (ANSI/AAMI EC53).
• Conclusion: "The test results demonstrated that the proposed device complies with the following standards." and "No clinical study is included in this submission."
• General conclusion: Based on these non-clinical tests, the proposed devices are determined to be Substantially Equivalent (SE) to the predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

Orantech Temperature Probes are intended to be used for monitoring temperature. The temperature probes are reusable and designed for use with monitors of Philips Model MP30 and Nihon Kohden Model BSM-6301A. These devices are indicated for used by qualified medical personnel only.

Reusable temperature probes are used during patient temperature measurement for multi-patient use. These probes consist of a phone plug connector on the monitor end and a thermistor on the patient end. Temperature probes measure temperature by a resistor that is sensitive to temperature changes. These probes are connected to the patient monitor either directly by using a phono plug or by an interconnect cable. These probes have a skin or core contact with a patient.

These temperature probes are typically used with legacy Philips monitor model MP30 and Nihon Kohden monitor model BSM-6301A.

The medical device in question is the Orantech Inc. Temperature Probe, models TS-Y400-AG30, TS-Y400-AS30, TS-PH-AG30, and TS-PH-AS30.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Ask a specific question about this device

The Disposable and Reusable SPO2 Sensors are indicated for continuous non-invasive monitoring of functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and pulse rate (PR) for adult patients weighing greater than 40 kg at hospital facilities.

The proposed device, Disposable and Reusable SpO2 Sensors are accessories to the oximeters, which are intended for spot checking or continuous monitoring of functional arterial oxygen saturation and pulse rate in non-invasive with U.S. legally marketed oximeters or patient monitors. The SSD-001-W09AN sensors is disposable while the SS-010-AF10 and SS-018-AF10 sensors are reusable. They are only intended for adult.

The sensor shall be connected with its corresponding monitor. Oxygenation of blood is measured by detecting the infrared and red light absorption characteristics of deoxygenated hemoglobin and oxygenated hemoglobin, which consists of a probe attached to the patient's finger. The sensor is connected to a data acquisition system which is used to calculate and display oxygen saturation levels and heart rate conditions.

Each sensor has two LEDs, emitting both red and infrared light, and a photodiode. Red and infrared light lit alternately according to certain sequence, when the fingertips of capillary repeatedly with the heart pumps blood congestion, light emitting diode after blood vessels and projected onto a photodiode, photodiode can be induced to change with pulse light intensity, the electrical signals in the form of change. Then the received signal is forwarded to the corresponding oximeter that amplifies the signal and an algorithm that calculates the ratio. By measuring the wave crest of the pulse wave and the absorbance of the trough, SpO2 is calculated to obtain the correct oxygen saturation value. The saturation value is determined by the percentage ratio of the oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO2) to the total amount of hemoglobin (Hb).

Here's an analysis of the provided information regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Disposable SpO2 Sensors and Reusable SpO2 Sensors:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document explicitly states the acceptance criteria for SpO2 and Pulse Rate (PR) accuracy, and it reports that the device meets these requirements.

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

• Sample Size: 12 human adult volunteers were used for each clinical study (there were two studies). This means a total of 24 human adult volunteers were used for the two studies combined.
• Data Provenance: The studies were described as "Clinical hypoxia test results obtained in human adult volunteers." The document doesn't specify the country of origin, but it implies a prospective clinical study using induced hypoxia.

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

The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth. It only states that the ground truth for arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) was "determined by co-oximetry."

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not provide details on any adjudication method used for the test set.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a sensor, and the clinical study focuses on its accuracy against a gold standard (co-oximetry) rather than a comparison of human reader performance with and without AI assistance.

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

Yes, the accuracy tests described are effectively a standalone performance evaluation of the device. The device itself (sensor and its internal algorithms for calculating SpO2 and PR) is directly compared against the ground truth (co-oximetry) measurements. There's no human 'reading' or interpretation of the sensor's output being evaluated in this context, other than potentially reading the numerical display that the device provides.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) as determined by co-oximetry. This is a recognized gold standard for measuring oxygen saturation in blood.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not mention the sample size for any training set. Given that this is a sensor (hardware with embedded algorithms) rather than a software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD) based on AI/Machine Learning that typically requires extensive re-training, it's possible that a distinct "training set" as understood in deep learning contexts was not highly relevant or explicitly documented. The development process likely involved calibration and verification, which might use internal datasets not explicitly labeled as "training."

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

Since a "training set" is not explicitly mentioned, the method for establishing its ground truth is also not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

The reusable blood pressure cuff is an accessory used in conjunction with noninvasive blood pressure measurement systems. The cuff is non-sterile and may be reused. It is available in neonate, infant, child and adult sizes.

The device comprises tubing attached to an inelastic sleeve with an integrated inflatable bladder that is wrapped around the patient's limb and secured by hook and loop closure. The device tubing is connected to a non-invasive blood pressure measurement system. The reusable NIBP cuff has 9 models with different size for different population with different arm size.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a Reusable NIBP Cuff, not an AI/ML medical device submission. Therefore, it does not contain the information requested in the prompt regarding acceptance criteria and study details for an AI-powered device.

The document discusses the substantial equivalence of the Reusable NIBP Cuff to an existing predicate device based on:

• Intended use and Indications for Use: An accessory for non-invasive blood pressure measurement systems, non-sterile, reusable, available in various sizes.
• Technical specifications: Material, tube number, limb circumference range, repeated inflation limits, pressure limits, sterility, biocompatibility.
• Performance Data: Non-clinical tests according to ISO 81060-1 (Non-Invasive Sphygmomanometers), ISO 10993-5 (In Vitro cytotoxicity), and ISO 10993-10 (irritation and skin sensitization).
• Clinical test: Explicitly stated as "not required" for this device.

None of the requested information regarding AI/ML device performance, acceptance criteria, sample sizes for AI model testing, expert consensus, MRMC studies, or ground truth establishment for AI is present in this regulatory submission for a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The intended use of the ETCO2 sensor is to provide carbon dioxide monitoring to a host monitoring system during anesthesia / recovery, in the intensive care unit (ICU), and in Emergency Medicine/Transport or Respiratory care.

The ETCO2 Sensor is comprised of three main components, a sensor with photo detector and light emitter, cable and connector, The CO2 Sensor incorporates an infrared light source, of specified wavelength, and an infrared detector. The photo detector and light emitter end of the CO2 sensor is connected to an airway adapter. The airway adapter is connected between the patient airway and the respirator. As the patient completes an expiratory breath the sensor measures the CO2 levels in the expiratory breath and sends that data to the compatible CO2 monitor. The monitor then reads the data and converts the data so it can be displayed on screen.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for an ETCO2 Sensor (Model CTM-RP01), not a study report detailing specific acceptance criteria and performance of an AI/ML device. Therefore, the requested information (acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details) is not present in this document.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Capnostat 5 CO2 sensor, K042601) based on similar technological characteristics and performance specifications for a carbon dioxide gas analyzer.

Here's what can be extracted and what is not available based on the provided text:

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

The document provides the performance specifications of the subject device (ETCO2 Sensor, Model CTM-RP01) and compares them to the predicate device. These specifications serve as de facto "acceptance criteria" through the lens of substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device