Search Results

The BPAP System is a Bi-level PAP (Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure) device, which is intended to provide noninvasive ventilation for patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) or Respiratory Insufficiency. The integrated humidifier is indicated for the humidification and warming of air from the flow generator device. The device is intended for adult patients weighing more than 66lbs (30 kg) by prescription. The device is intended for single patient use in the home environment and multi-patient re-use in the hospital/institutional environment.

The proposed device is a non-invasive, continuous positive airway pressure ventilator, incorporating a heated respiratory humidifier. The device is intended to treat obstructive sleep apnea or respiratory insufficiency by delivering a flow of positive airway pressure at a level prescribed by a physician to splint open the airway and prevent airway collapse.

The proposed device is available in different models designed with different therapy modes and pressure ranges. The therapy modes are available in six types, which are CPAP, Spontaneous (S), Spontaneous/Timed (S/T), Timed (T), Auto CPAP and Auto S. The pressure range for the proposed devices is available in two types, which are 4-25cm H2O and 4-30 cm H2O.

Alarm module is incorporated in the device. The device will generate audio and visual alarm for any abnormal conditions. The proposed device is provided non-sterile, and not to be sterilized by the user prior to use. The proposed device can be reused by single patient and multi-patients

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a BPAP System, stating that "No clinical study is included in this submission." Therefore, there is no information in the provided document about acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes for test and training sets, data provenance, expert ground truth establishment, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone performance. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through non-clinical tests and feature comparison.

However, I can extract the non-clinical test conclusions and how they "prove the device meets acceptance criteria" in that context.

Here's a breakdown of what the document does provide:

Non-Clinical Test Data and Compliance

The document states that non-clinical tests were conducted to verify that the proposed device met all design specifications. The test results demonstrated compliance with various international standards, which serve as the "acceptance criteria" for these non-clinical aspects.

1. A table of acceptance criteria (standards) and the reported device performance (compliance):

Additionally, the device's specific technical performance attributes were compared to predicate devices, demonstrating substantial equivalence rather than meeting independent clinical acceptance criteria:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

No clinical study test set or data provenance is mentioned as "No clinical study is included in this submission." The "test set" in this context refers to the physical device prototypes undergoing non-clinical bench testing.

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

Not applicable, as no clinical study or expert-driven ground truth establishment is described. The "ground truth" for non-clinical tests is based on engineering specifications and adherence to international standards.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

Not applicable, as no clinical study is conducted.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done:

No. As explicitly stated: "No clinical study is included in this submission." Therefore, no MRMC study or effect size for human reader improvement with AI assistance was performed or reported here.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device (BPAP system), not an AI algorithm. Its performance is inherent to the device itself, as demonstrated through non-clinical testing against standards.

7. The type of ground truth used:

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the requirements and specifications of the cited international standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series, ISO 80601 series, ISO 10993 series, ISO 18562 series) and the manufacturer's internal design specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable, as "No clinical study is included in this submission." This is a hardware device cleared based on substantial equivalence, not a machine learning algorithm requiring a training set.

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

Not applicable for the same reason as above.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Luna® G3 BPAP System is a Bi-level PAP (Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure) device designed for the treatment of adult Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA). The integrated humidification and warming of air from the flow generator device. These devices are intended for single-patient use by prescription in the home or hospital/ institutional environment on adult patients. It is to be used on patients > 66 lbs / 30 kg for whom CPAP therapy has been prescribed.

The Luna® G3 BPAP system is a microprocessor controlled, blower-based system that generates positive airway pressure to support treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. Its hardware design is identical to the previously cleared Luna® G3 BPAP 25A (K201620). The subject device includes two models, with different pressure ranges. They both have four therapy modes, which are CPAP, Spontaneous (S), Timed (T) and Spontaneous/Timed (S/T).

This 510(k) summary (K212263) describes a device modification to an existing Bi-level PAP system (Luna G3 BPAP System). The core of the submission revolves around demonstrating substantive equivalence to a predicate device (Luna G3 BPAP 25A, K201620) and referencing a device (Juno VPAP ST-A, K153061) for new functionalities.

It is crucial to understand that this document describes a device intended for treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA), providing positive airway pressure. It is not an AI/ML powered diagnostic device that would typically involve a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) study or complex ground truth establishment from expert consensus or pathology, as might be seen for an imaging AI.

Therefore, many of the typical "acceptance criteria" and "study types" for AI/ML-powered devices, such as those related to standalone performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC), MRMC studies, and expert ground truth establishment for a diagnostic output, are not applicable to this type of medical device submission.

Instead, the acceptance criteria and supporting studies are focused on engineering and performance characteristics of the medical device itself, ensuring it functions safely and effectively as intended and is equivalent to previously cleared devices.

Here's an analysis based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't present a single aggregated table of "acceptance criteria" versus "reported performance" for a diagnostic output as would be seen for AI/ML diagnostic tools. Instead, it details specific performance tests and standards met, comparing the subject device's characteristics to its predicate and reference devices. The "acceptance criteria" are implied by adherence to recognized standards and demonstrated equivalence to the cleared predicate.

Here's an interpretation of relevant performance characteristics that serve as de facto acceptance criteria and their reported performance:

Ask a specific question about this device