Search Results

When applied by a trained health care professional, the TZ Medical ARC™ device is indicated to assist in controlled compression hemostasis of the radial artery after a transradial procedure; the device is indicated to compress the radial artery access puncture site in order to achieve hemostasis and maintain patency of the radial artery (patent hemostasis).

The TZ Medial ARC Adjustable Radial Cuff "ARC" compression device is used at the end of a Transradial catheterization procedures to provide hemostasis of the radial artery at the access site. The ridged brace designed radial compression device consisting of a rigid polycarbonate "C" shaped brace, a flexible strap containing a PVC backing, hook and loop fasteners, and two buckles which attach to the ends of the brace, a collapsible bubble fixed to an adjustable slider with an air fill tube and universal luer lock, as well as back pad opposite of the bubble for patient comfort. Each device also includes a standard 20cc male luer locking syringe.

The Cuff is positioned around the patient's wrist and secured in place by fastening and tightening the Back Hook and Strap Assembly. As the introducer sheath is removed from the patient's wrist, pressure is applied to the access site by inflating the compression bubble of the ARC device. The bubble is inflated when air is injected through a luer lock air injection port which assures the desired air volume/pressure remains in the compression bubble. The volume/pressure in the bubble can be titrated by the physician to meet the hemodynamic needs of the patient by increasing or decreasing the volume in the ARC device bubble.

The ARC devices is intended for a single use only with a Functional life is less than 24 hours. This device is individually packaged and sterilized by ethylene oxide gas.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the "ARC Adjustable Radial Cuff Compression Device." This document outlines the device's indications for use, its comparison to a predicate device (Terumo TR Band), and mentions performance testing conducted to verify conformity to applicable standards. However, it does not describe a study that involves an AI/ML device, nor does it contain information related to acceptance criteria or performance metrics such as those typically found in clinical trials for diagnostic or AI-assisted devices (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC).

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device for a physical medical device (a vascular clamp/compression device). The "Performance Testing" section (M) refers to verification of conformity to external and internal standards (e.g., ISO standards for biological evaluation, risk management, sterilization, quality management, packaging). It also mentions Design Verification (DV) functional performance testing which included in-vitro engineering and bench testing on components.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves an AI device meets those criteria, as the provided text does not pertain to such a device or study.

If you have a different document or context related to an AI/ML medical device, please provide it, and I will do my best to answer your detailed questions.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TZ Medical skull pin is placed in a clamp and is applied to the patient's skull to hold their head and neck securely in a particular position when rigid fixation is desired. The clamp is indicated for use in open and percutaneous craniotomies as well as spinal surgery when rigid fixation is necessary.

The TZ Skull Pin is a sterile cervical traction skull pin manufactured from implant grade 316L stainless steel alloy. The TZ Skull Pin is used during neurosurgical procedures to immobilize the head in reference to the torso and to provide cervical immobilization.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the TZ Skull Pin Adult device, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document does not explicitly state the exact sample sizes (number of pins or animals) for each specific test in the "Summary of Performance Testing" section. It refers to testing being conducted but provides general results rather than specific numerical data for each test condition. The studies are laboratory-based and use animal models for biocompatibility tests (guinea pigs, rabbits, mice) and mechanical testing of the pins. Data provenance is implied to be from the manufacturer's internal testing as part of their 510(k) submission.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided in the document. The tests performed are primarily mechanical and biological (biocompatibility) evaluations based on established international standards (ASTM and ISO), not human reader evaluations or clinical trials. The "ground truth" for these tests is defined by the specific parameters and outcomes outlined in the referenced standards (e.g., absence of cell lysis, holding a load without failure).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for human reader studies to establish a consensus ground truth. The tests described are objective, laboratory-based evaluations against predetermined criteria.

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

This information is not applicable. The TZ Skull Pin is a physical medical device (neurosurgical skull pin), not an AI algorithm or an imaging device to be read by human experts. Therefore, no MRMC study or AI-related comparative effectiveness study was performed or is relevant to this device's submission.

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

This information is not applicable. As explained above, this device is a physical skull pin, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the performance tests (Skull Pin System Testing, Max Load Test, Creep Test) is defined by the pass/fail criteria of established engineering standards, specifically ASTM F1831-97 (implicitly referenced for performance) and the general requirement that the device performs safely and effectively without material failure or slipping.

For the biocompatibility studies (Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Irritation, Systemic Toxicity), the ground truth is defined by the objective criteria and endpoints specified in the relevant international ISO standards (ISO 10993-5, ISO 10993-10, ISO 10993-11), such as the absence of cell lysis, dermal contact sensitization, irritation, or systemic toxicity.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of this physical medical device. Training sets are relevant for machine learning algorithms.

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

This information is not applicable, as there is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The device is intended for use by individuals who are at risk of having cardiac disease and those that have intermittent symptoms indicative of cardiac disease and demonstrated a need to be monitored on a continuing basis. The ECG recordings can be uploaded to monitoring center in a variety of ways - transmitted via Cellular RF Modem, via RF, via TTL, or flash card to an FTP storage location or software package to be read by a healthcare professional.

Patients include, but at are not limited to, those requiring monitoring for a) non-life threatening arrhythmias such as supraventricular tachycardias (e.g. atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, PACS, PSVT) and ventricular ectopy, b) evaluation of bradyarrhthmias and intermittent bundle branch block including after cardiovascular surgery and myocardial infarction, and c) arrhythmias associated with co-morbid conditions such as hyperthyroidism or chronic lung disease.

Patients with symptoms that may be due to cardiac arrhythmias. These may include, but are not limited to, symptoms such as a) syncope of unknown etiology in which arrhythmias are suspected or need to be excluded, c) dyspnea (shortness of breath). Patients with palpitations with or without known arrhythmias to obtain correlation or arrhythmias with symptoms.

Patients who requiring monitoring of the effects of drugs to control ventricular rate in atrial arrhythmias (e.g. atrial fibrillation).

Patients recovery from cardiac surgery who are indicated for outpatient arrhythmia monitoring.

Patients with diagnosed sleep disordered breathing including sleep apnea (obstructive central) to evaluate possible nocturnal arrhythmias.

Patients requiring arrhythmia evaluation of etiology of stroke or transient cerebral ischemia, possibly secondary to atrial fibrillation or flutter.

Data from this device may be used by another device to analyze , measure or report QT interval . The device is not intended to sound any alarms for QT interval changes.

The Aera CT is an ECG Device with auto trigger capability using MCOT compliant wireless technology for monitoring ambulatory patients with non-life threatening conditions.

The device is composed of patient (ECG) leads, monitor, and charging wall board adapter.

A sensor captures the ECG signal from the patient's body and transmits the signal to the small (hand sized) monitor where data is stored and analyzed by automated arrhythmia analysis algorithms. When events are detected by the arrhythmia analysis algorithm or when the event processing event key is depressed, the data is transmitted by RF to a data storage location monitored by receiving center. The transmission may occur via Cellular RF modem, RF, or TTL via a landline telephone. The data is received and reviewed by the appropriately trained healthcare professionals or technicians. Request for additional data can be sent to MCT device via SMS text formatted message that will originate from the receiving software.

The provided document for the Aera CT device does not contain a detailed study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria with performance metrics. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on shared characteristics, intended use, operating principles, and technological characteristics. The submission states that:

"The TZ Medical has developed tests using the same requirements that CardioNet (K072558) and (K100155) have used and stated that their devices comply with in their respective 510k submission. The TZ Medical device and the two predicated devices are tested to and comply with all applicable tests and requirements in the relevant standards as stated in this submission."

And, "TZ Medical will compile and analyze clinical test data at a trial site prior to use. Results of data will be used as part of the validation and verification data submitted with the design file. Clinical test will be conducted at facilities that are familiar with predicate devices and will submit reports verifying substantial equivalence to competitive products and on performance to specifications."

However, the specific performance data, acceptance criteria, or a detailed study report are not included in this 510(k) summary. The submission asserts compliance with standards like AAMI EC 38:2007 (Ambulatory Electrocardiographs) and ANSI/AAMI EC 57:1998 (Testing & reporting performance results of cardiac and ST-segment measurement algorithms), which would inherently imply certain performance thresholds, but these thresholds and the device's measured performance against them are not explicitly listed in the document.

Therefore, many of the requested details about acceptance criteria and a specific study cannot be extracted directly from this submission.

Here's a breakdown of what can be inferred or explicitly stated based on the provided text, and what is missing:

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

A specific table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance is not explicitly provided in the document. The submission implies that the device meets the performance requirements outlined in referenced standards (EC 38 compliant, and tested to all applicable tests in relevant standards). However, the quantitative acceptance criteria for parameters like accuracy, sensitivity, specificity for arrhythmia detection, and the device's measured performance against those criteria are not detailed.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The submission mentions "clinical test data at a trial site" to be compiled and analyzed, but does not specify the sample size, whether the data is retrospective or prospective, or its country of origin.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

This information is not provided. The document states that "Interpretation and diagnosis is the responsibility of a trained healthcare professional or physician," implying that expert review would establish ground truth for clinical data, but specifics regarding the number and qualifications of experts for a test set are absent.

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

This information is 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

This information is not applicable/provided. The Aera CT is an "Arrhythmia Detector and Alarm" system that analyzes ECG signals with "automated arrhythmia analysis algorithms" and "does not provide interpretive or diagnostic statements." Its function as described is not primarily for AI-assisted human reading to improve diagnostic accuracy, but rather for automated detection and transmission of data to be read by professionals. Therefore, an MRMC study on human reader improvement with AI assistance is not described or implied for this device.

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

The submission implies extensive standalone testing of the algorithm against relevant performance standards. It states, "A sensor captures the ECG signal from the patient's body and transmits the signal to the small (hand sized) monitor where data is stored and analyzed by automated arrhythmia analysis algorithms. When events are detected by the arrhythmia analysis algorithm... the data is transmitted..." This describes a standalone algorithmic function. The claim of "EC 38 compliant" and compliance with "all applicable tests and requirements in the relevant standards" (which includes ANSI/AAMI EC 57:1998 for testing performance of cardiac algorithms) suggests that standalone algorithm performance testing was central to the submission, although the specific results are not provided.

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

Since no specific study results are provided in this summary, the type of ground truth used is not explicitly stated. However, for arrhythmia detection algorithms, ground truth is typically established by expert review (e.g., experienced cardiologists or electrophysiologists) of the ECG tracings.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided. The document does not discuss the development or training of its proprietary algorithm.

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

This information is not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

The V1 Multi-port Connector is intended to be used primarily in electrophysiology (EP) laboratories as a multi-port connector with switching capabilities for connection to defibrillator, EP study equipment and electrosurgical devices. It provides a stable, focal location for multiple wires, cables and connections. The device allows the defibrillator to be used as a back-up for stimulating and pacing when those pieces of equipment are unavailable.

The V1 Multi-port Connector is intended to be used primarily in electrophysiology (EP) laboratories as a multi-port connector with switching capabilities for connection to defibrillator, EP study equipment and electrosurgical devices. It provides a stable, focal location for multiple wires, cables and connections. The device allows the defibrillator to be used as a back-up for stimulating and pacing when those pieces of equipment are unavailable.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain the information required to answer your request. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device (VI Multiport Connector) and does not include details about acceptance criteria, study findings, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment.

Ask a specific question about this device

Neptune Pad (calcium alginate pad alone): Neptune Pad is used to promote the rapid control of bleeding and provide hemostasis for lacerations, abrasions, vascular access sites and following surgical incision. It can be used to achieve hemostasis at the skin surface for arterial/venous catheterization/tubes, needle puncture, hemodialysis and in patients on anticoagulation therapy.

Neptune Comfort-Band (Pressure Band with calcium alginate pad): Neptune Comfort-Band is used to provide pressure and promote the rapid control of bleeding and promote hemostasis following needle puncture, arterial/venous catheterization and access sites, including patients on anticoagulation therapy, and following hemodialysis.

Comfort-Band (Pressure Band alone): Comfort-Band is used to provide pressure and promote the rapid control of bleeding and hemostasis following needle puncture, arterial/venous catheterization and access sites, including patients on anticoagulation therapy, and following hemodialysis. It may be used alone, with Neptune Pad, with sterile gauze or other sterile wound dressings.

Neptune Pad - Varying size, packaged sterile pads may be used alone as a wound dressing. The Pad may also be used with manual pressure or FDA cleared mechanical pressure devices to provide rapid control of bleeding and hemostasisat the skin surface.

Neptune Comfort-Band - The Comfort-Band is packaged with a Neptune Pad, and sterilized. It is strapped around the arm (hemodialysis graft, or radial/brachial arteries) to provide pressure for rapid control of bleeding and hemostasis.

Comfort-Band - The Comfort-Band is provided sterile or non-sterile, single use only. Non-sterile Comfort-Bands are provided with cleaning and high level disinfectant instructions) The Sterile Comfort-Band is packaged alone and EtO sterilized. The Comfort-Bands may be used with or without a dressing. The device is strapped around the arm (hemodialysis graft, or radial/brachial arteries) to provide rapid pressure control of bleeding and hemostasis.

The provided text describes the regulatory aspects of TZ Medical's Neptune products (Neptune Pad, Neptune Comfort-Band, and Comfort-Band), including their indications for use and a summary of substantial equivalence testing. However, it does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer all sections of your request regarding acceptance criteria and a specific study proving the device meets those criteria.

Based on the available information, here's what can be inferred and what is missing:

Missing Information:
The document does not provide:

• A specific table of acceptance criteria with reported device performance metrics (e.g., specific thresholds for hemostasis time, bleeding reduction).
• Details about sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, number or qualifications of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, or how ground truth for training sets was established. This is likely because the document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on substantial equivalence rather than detailed clinical trial results.

Here's an attempt to answer based on the provided text, highlighting the limitations:

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

The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria or report specific performance metrics for the Neptune products. Instead, it makes a general statement about the products being "considered safe and effective" and that "Data demonstrates there are no new risks associated with the product."

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

The document does not provide any information regarding the sample size, data provenance, or study design (retrospective/prospective) for any test sets.

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)

The document does not mention the use of experts to establish a ground truth or their qualifications.

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

The document does not describe any adjudication method.

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

The document does not mention any MRMC studies, nor does it describe an AI component for these devices. The Neptune products are physical hemostatic devices, not AI-driven diagnostic tools.

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

This question is not applicable as the Neptune products are not algorithms but physical medical devices.

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

The document does not specify the type of ground truth used. The statement "Data demonstrates there are no new risks associated with the product" implies some form of testing was conducted to support safety and effectiveness, likely comparing their performance (e.g., hemostasis time) to predicate devices or established benchmarks, but the details are not provided.

8. The sample size for the training set

The document does not specify a training set or its sample size. This is consistent with the nature of the device as a physical product, not an AI model.

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

Not applicable, as no training set for an AI model is mentioned.

Summary of the Study Mentioned:

The document briefly mentions a "Substantial Equivalence Testing Summary."

• Device Tested: Neptune Pad, Neptune Comfort-Band, and Comfort-Band.
• Methodology (Implied): The devices were tested to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices:
  • Kalginate by DeRoyal (K941176)
  • HemoBand (originally manufactured for Innovations for Access by TZ Medical) (K920614)
  • Chito-Seal by Perclose (K021062)
  • Syvek Patch by Marine Polymer Technology (K984177)
• Key Findings: "The TZ Medical Neptune products have been tested and are considered safe and effective." The submission states that with the "exception of the Comfort-Band material and an adhesive interface between the Comfort-Band and calcium alginate pad, all other products and processes are identical to products with current 510(k)s K920614, and K941176)." It concludes that "Data demonstrates there are no new risks associated with the product."
• Limitations: The summary does not provide specific performance data, test protocols, sample sizes, or details on how "safety and effectiveness" were quantified or compared. This summary confirms that some testing was performed to satisfy the regulatory requirement for substantial equivalence, rather than detailing a clinical study with specific acceptance criteria and results.

Ask a specific question about this device

The fixed PadTac electrophysiology mapping and recording catheters and PadTac cables are used for recording intracardiac electrogram (EGM) and for cardiac stimulation during diagnostic electrophysiology studies. The catheters will be used in the high right atrium, right ventricular apex and HIS bundle (recording only). The cables and box connect the catheter to the recording system.

The PadTac Electrophysiology catheters are between 5 and 8 french (fr), 4, 10, 12 and 14 pole, fixed, monitoring and recording.
The multi-electrode electrophysiology catheters are used for electrophysiology electrocardiograph recording and cardiac stimulation during diagnostic procedures. The cables and box serve as an extension between the catheter and the pin block.

The provided text outlines the 510(k) summary for the TZ Medical PadTac Electrophysiology Recording Catheters, Junction Box Cable Connector, and Electrophysiology Connector Cables. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing a detailed study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria with quantifiable performance metrics.

Therefore, a complete answer as requested is not possible from the provided text. However, I can extract what is available regarding the "acceptance criteria" and "study" as presented:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document does not provide a table of quantitative acceptance criteria or specific performance metrics in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, or other numerical results for the device's function. Instead, it references adherence to existing guidance documents and standards for safety and effectiveness.

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

The document does not describe a clinical study with a test set of data. The assessment appears to be based on engineering tests and adherence to recognized standards for substantial equivalence, not on performance data from patient cases. Therefore, information on sample size and data provenance is not available.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications:

Not applicable. The document does not describe a study involving expert-established ground truth for performance evaluation.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable. There is no mention of a test set requiring adjudication.

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

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study is mentioned. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through adherence to existing guidelines and standards, not through comparative clinical performance against human readers.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study:

Not applicable. This device is a physical medical catheter and associated cables, not an algorithm, so a standalone algorithm performance study is not relevant.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

Not applicable. The document does not describe a study that uses ground truth data from patients (e.g., pathology, outcomes data, or expert consensus) to evaluate performance. The "ground truth" implicitly refers to the established safety and effectiveness parameters outlined in the referenced preliminary guidance and standards.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. The document does not describe a machine learning algorithm or a training set.

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

Not applicable. The document does not describe a machine learning algorithm or a training set.

Summary of the "Study" (as described in the 510(k) summary):

The "study" referenced in the 510(k) summary is not a clinical performance study with human or simulated data. Instead, it refers to the testing and evaluation conducted to demonstrate that the PadTac EP Catheters and cables meet the safety and effectiveness requirements outlined in existing FDA guidance and international standards.

• For the PadTac Electrophysiology Catheters: The device was tested and determined to be safe and effective per the "Electrode Recording Catheter Preliminary Guidance" from 1995. This guidance likely outlines specific engineering and performance tests (e.g., electrical parameters, biocompatibility, mechanical integrity) that the device must pass to be considered equivalent to existing devices.
• For the PadTac Cables: The cables were tested and determined to be safe and effective per "Standard for Medical Equipment; Part 1: General Requirements, UL 2601 (IEC 60601-1)." This refers to electrical safety and general requirements for medical equipment.

In essence, the "study" is an engineering and regulatory compliance assessment, not a clinical trial or a performance study involving patient data or human readers. The acceptance criteria are implicitly the requirements set forth in the referenced guidance and standards, and the "reported performance" is the conclusion that the device meets those criteria and is therefore considered safe and effective and substantially equivalent to predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The Booker Box is passive connector, which allows connection to two defibrillators at a time to allow the physician to place a back up pair of electrodes. When the device is connected to two separate low energy defibrillators (using the adaptor/connectors compatible with the individual defibrillator) and disposable electrodes, energy from the defibrillator passes through the device to the external disposable electrodes. Should the physician need to the second set of electrodes are used as a back up in case the first pair configuration is unable to convert. The device also can be connected to a generic physiologic monitor recorder cable to allow unipolar recording using one of the back electrodes.

• 1. Provides simultaneous connection to two defibrillators, which allows placement of a set of backup electrodes
• Provides connection to generic physiologic monitor recorder cable for unipolar recording from 2. using a back electrode.
• Used in Hospitals/EP Laboratories
• 4. Used with manual defibrillators and has been tested with the following devices:
     Hewlett Packard CodeMaster Hewlett Packard 7600, 7800 Zoll PD1200, PD1400, "M" Series Siemans 410 PhysioControl LifePak LP5, LP6, LP8, LP9, LP10 and LP 12

The Booker Box is passive connector, which allows connection to two defibrillators at a time to allow the physician to place a back up pair of electrodes.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding a medical device, the "Booker Box Defibrillation Cable Adapter, Model Pad 5001." This document primarily addresses the substantial equivalence determination for marketing the device and does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria, device performance studies, sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth methodologies as typically expected for proving a device meets acceptance criteria in a detailed clinical or performance study report.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information from the provided text as it is not present in this type of regulatory correspondence. The letter confirms that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices and can therefore be marketed. It does not elaborate on the specific performance data or studies that might have been submitted by the manufacturer to demonstrate this equivalence.

To answer your questions, I would need a different type of document, such as a summary of safety and effectiveness data (SSED), a clinical study report, or a performance testing report from the device manufacturer.

Ask a specific question about this device

TZ Medical adult disposable electrodes are used by trained professionals in hospitals, doctors offices and Emergency medical Services for adult low-energy defibrillation, transcutaneous pacing, cardioversion and monitoring.

PadTac Adult Defibrillate/Cardiovert/Pace Pad Fac Addit Dollahilator - TZ Medical Inc.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification approval letter for the "PADTAK Adult Defib/Cardiovert/Pace/Monitoring Electrodes." This document primarily indicates the FDA's finding of substantial equivalence to a predicate device and permits the marketing of the device. It does not contain information about the acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding performance, sample size, ground truth, or study details from the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

PadTac Pediatric disposable electrodes are used by trained professionals in hospitals, doctors offices and Emergency Medical Services for pediatric low-energy defibrillation, cardioversion, pacing and monitoring.

PadTac Pediatric Defibrillate/Cardiovert/Pace/Monitoring Electrodes

This document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the "PadTac Pediatric Defib/Cardiovert/Pace/Monitoring Electrodes." It does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving device performance in the manner requested. The letter states that the device is "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices, which is the basis for its clearance, rather than the results of a specific performance study against defined acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information from this document. The document primarily focuses on regulatory clearance based on substantial equivalence, not on a detailed scientific study with performance metrics and ground truth establishment.

Ask a specific question about this device