Search Results

The Abbott Q2™ Plus SO2/Continuous Cardiac Output Computer has the following indications for use: It is intended for deriving and monitoring hemodynamic and cardiac parameters in patients with pre-existing central line access. It monitors cardiac output, body core temperature and blood oxygen saturation. These and other calculated hemodynamic values are displayed and may be communicated to other external monitoring systems. It is intended to be used in medical and surgical intensive care units, operating rooms, trauma and accident emergency units, coronary and intensive care units and cardiac catheterization labs.

The proposed Abbott Q2™ Plus SO2/Continuous Cardiac Output Computer is based on modifications to existing Abbott devices and combines the functions into a single unit. The proposed device will be capable of measuring the following parameters: 1. CCO, Continuous Cardiac Output 2. SO2, Saturation of oxygen in the blood 3. Body core temperature 4. TDCO, Standard bolus thermal-dilution cardiac output 5. Calculation of other hemodynamic parameters. The Q2™ Plus system consists of the Q2 monitor and it is to be used with the following medical devices: an Abbott SvO%CCO catheter, Abbott Optical Module, an Oximetrix Printer and various connecting cables. Patient data is derived from an indwelling cardiac catheter. The Q2 ™ Plus unit is the size of a desktop computer with a monochrome CRT, front panel kevpad (for user input), and various connectors for the catheter, optical module, and serial (RS-232) lines. The instrument has a single computer and various peripheral and special purpose controller boards. The proposed instrument consists of two subsystems, the Interface Control Processor (ICP) and the Core Control Processor (CCP) which are connected by a serial data link.

The Abbott Q2™ Plus SO2/Continuous Cardiac Output Computer is a medical device designed to measure and monitor various hemodynamic and cardiac parameters. The provided documentation does not include specific acceptance criteria with numerical thresholds, nor does it detail a study that explicitly proves the device meets such criteria. However, it does describe the general testing and conclusions.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document does not provide a table with specific, quantifiable acceptance criteria (e.g., accuracy +/- X%, precision Y%). Instead, it states general successful outcomes of testing.

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

The document does not specify the sample size used for the test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It only refers to "bench and functional testing" and "testing conducted to validate and verify the design modifications."

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

The document does not mention the use of experts to establish ground truth for a test set. The evaluation relies on direct functional and safety testing, not on interpretation by human experts.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable, as no expert-based ground truth establishment or adjudication is described.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study is not mentioned. The device is a diagnostic computer that provides objective measurements, rather than requiring subjective interpretation that would benefit from an MRMC study.

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

The testing described ("bench and functional testing," "software verification and validation") implies standalone performance evaluation of the device as an algorithm and hardware unit without human intervention for the primary measurement tasks. The device itself is designed to provide direct measurements (CCO, SO2, temperature) that are then displayed.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

The document does not explicitly state the "type of ground truth" in the context of a dataset with established true values. Instead, the validation appears to be against established engineering standards, predicate device performance, and the fundamental principles of the measurements it performs. For example, the accuracy of temperature measurements would be validated against a known accurate temperature source, and oxygen saturation against established calibration methods. The implicit ground truth would be highly accurate reference measurements or physically known values.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not mention a "training set" or "training data" as
would be typical for machine learning algorithms. The device is a "preprogrammed diagnostic computer" and likely relies on established algorithms and calibration methods rather than a data-driven training approach.

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

Not applicable, as no training set is mentioned or implied.

Ask a specific question about this device