Search Results

The AeroChamber mini Ventilation Chamber is a single patient, disposable device, intended to be used for the administration of metered dose inhaler medication prescribed by a physician or health care professional. The device is intended for use with patients on mechanical ventilation via resuscitation bag or ventilator circuit. The intended environments for use include the home, hospitals and clinics.

The AeroChamber mini Ventilation Chamber is a single patient, disposable device, intended to be used for the administration of metered dose inhaler medication prescribed by a physician or health care professional.

Here's the analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the AeroChamber Mini Ventilation Chamber:

Analysis of Acceptance Criteria and Study for AeroChamber Mini Ventilation Chamber

The provided FDA 510(k) summary (K090065) for the AeroChamber Mini Ventilation Chamber primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It certifies that the device can be legally marketed based on its comparison to existing devices.

However, this document does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria or an analytical study proving the device meets those criteria, as one would typically find for a new, novel AI/ML-driven medical device requiring performance validation.

The document states: "We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification... and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices..." This heavily implies that the device's acceptable performance is based on its similarity to already approved devices, rather than a de novo clinical or analytical study with defined performance metrics and acceptance thresholds.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and performance studies for an AI/ML device cannot be extracted from this document.

Summary Table (Based on available information):

Detailed Breakdown (Responding to your specific questions):

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

   • As noted above, explicit quantitative acceptance criteria for device performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, or other measurable outcomes) are not present in this 510(k) letter. The "acceptance" is based on the FDA's determination of substantial equivalence to a predicate device. The reported performance is implicitly that it functions similarly to the predicate for its intended use.

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 / Not provided. The document does not describe a test set or a study conducted to evaluate the device's performance against defined metrics. The decision is based on a comparison to a predicate device, which would involve reviewing documentation and design specifications, not experimental data collection with a "test set" in the context of an AI/ML device.

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 / Not provided. No ground truth establishment is described for this type of submission.

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

   • Not applicable / Not provided. No test set or adjudication method 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. This device is a mechanical ventilation chamber, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or therapeutic tool. Therefore, an MRMC study or assessment of human reader improvement with AI assistance is not relevant.

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

   • Not applicable. This is a hardware device (ventilation chamber), not an algorithm.

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

   • Not applicable / Not provided. No ground truth is described.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable / Not provided. This is a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm requiring a training set.

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

   • Not applicable / Not provided. No training set or ground truth establishment is described.

In conclusion, the provided FDA letter confirms the substantial equivalence of the AeroChamber Mini Ventilation Chamber to a predicate device, enabling its market authorization. It is not a document detailing the performance validation of a novel device, particularly an AI/ML-driven one, against specific acceptance criteria through a dedicated study.

Ask a specific question about this device