Search Results

The CardioNet Ambulatory ECG Monitor with Arrhythmia Detection intended use is for:

1. Patients who have a demonstrated need for cardiac monitoring. These may include but are not limited to patients who require 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 bradyarrhythmias 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
2. Patients with symptoms that may be due to cardiac arrhythmias. These may include but are not limited to symptoms such as: a) dizziness or lightheadedness; b) syncope of unknown etiology in which arrhythmias are suspected or need to be excluded; and c) dyspnea (shortness of breath).
3. Patients with palpitations with or without known arrhythmias to obtain correlation of rhythm with symptoms.
4. Patients who require outpatient monitoring of antiarrhythmic therapy: a) monitoring of therapeutic and potential proarrhythmic effects (e.g. QT prolongation) of membrane active drugs b) monitoring of effect of drugs to control ventricular rate in various atrial arrhythmias (e.g. atrial fibrillation).
5. Patients recovering from cardiac surgery who are indicated for outpatient arrhythmia monitoring.
6. Patients with diagnosed sleep disordered breathing including sleep apnea (obstructive, central) to evaluate possible nocturnal arrhythmias
7. Patients requiring arrhythmia evaluation of etiology of stroke or transient cerebral ischemia, possibly secondary to atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter
8. Patients requiring measurement, analysis and reporting of the QT interval, excluding patients with a documented history of sustained atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

The CardioNet ECG Monitor with Arrhythmia Detection is an ambulatory ECG monitor with capability to detect cardiac arrhythmias and transmit ECG data to a CardioNet staffed monitoring center.

The subject device is comprised of three (3) main components: 1) a patient-worn Sensor, 2) a Monitor and 3) a charging Base.

A Sensor acquires the ECG signal from the patient's body and transmits the signal to PDA sized monitor where the data is stored and analyzed by an automated arrhythmia analysis algorithm. When an arrhythmic event is detected the monitor can transmit the ECG data to the monitoring center utilizing a cellular modem or telephone data line. The patient can also initiate the recording and transmission of ECG data if symptoms are felt. The data is received and reviewed by trained technicians using the Monitoring Services Application.

Here's an analysis of the CardioNet Arrhythmia Detector based on the provided text, focusing on acceptance criteria and study details:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state quantitative "acceptance criteria" in a typical numerical format (e.g., sensitivity of X%, specificity of Y%). Instead, it refers to performance standards and comparison to human-annotated data, particularly for QT detection.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for either the overall arrhythmia detection or the QT detection algorithm. The text only mentions "human annotated ECG data" for QT, without specifying the number of ECGs or patients.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. It's unclear if the data was retrospective or prospective, or the country of origin.

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified. The data for QT detection was "human annotated," implying at least one expert, but the exact number isn't provided.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified. The term "human annotated" is broad and does not detail the expertise (e.g., cardiologists, certified ECG technicians, years of experience) of those who provided the annotations.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not specified. There is no mention of how disagreements among multiple annotators (if any were used) were resolved.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, and the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

• No. The provided text does not describe an MRMC comparative effectiveness study where human readers' performance with and without AI assistance was evaluated. The performance assessment mentioned for QT detection was a standalone comparison of the algorithm and a predicate device against human-annotated ground truth.

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

• Yes, for the QT detection algorithm. The text states: "The performance of the QT detection algorithm was assessed by comparing the performance of both the subject and predicate devices against human annotated ECG data." This indicates an algorithm-only evaluation against established ground truth.
• For the general arrhythmia detection, the device is described as having an "automated arrhythmia analysis algorithm" which performs analysis on the monitor. While it transmits data to a monitoring center for review by "trained technicians," the initial analysis is algorithmic. The performance testing against standards (EC 38, EC 57) implies standalone algorithm performance evaluation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the QT detection algorithm: Expert Consensus/Human Annotation. The text explicitly states "human annotated ECG data."
• For general arrhythmia detection: Implied to be derived from expert-reviewed "gold standard" datasets that conform to standards like ANSI/AAMI EC 57, which outlines methods for testing and reporting performance results of cardiac rhythm algorithms. However, the specific method for establishing ground truth for the entire arrhythmia detection suite isn't detailed beyond conforming to these standards.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not specified. The document focuses on performance testing (validation) and does not provide details about the training data used to develop the algorithms.

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

• Not specified. As with the training set size, the method for establishing its ground truth is not mentioned in the provided summary.

Ask a specific question about this device