Search Results

The 8650D will be used as the air source to nebulize sterile water to provide humidification to patients with tracheostomies. The 8650Dxmay also be used to nebulize medications in the treatment of Asthma, Cystic Fibrosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The DeVilbiss 8650D Compressor is a portable AC powered air compressor that will act as an air source to operate a pneumatic nebulizer. The device has an internal cooling fan to allow continuous use operation. It uses a metal housing with sound barrier foam to provide a low noise level.

The DeVilbiss 8650D Compressor is a medical device intended for use as an air source to operate a pneumatic nebulizer. The submission K963349 focuses on demonstrating its substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the Allied Healthcare/Timeter PCS414, rather than presenting a detailed study proving specific clinical acceptance criteria of the device itself through a diagnostic study.

The provided text describes basic performance testing to ensure the device functions as intended and meets safety standards. It does not contain information about a diagnostic study with human subjects, ground truth establishment, or expert reviews as typically found for AI/imaging devices.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, addressing the requested points where possible, and noting where information is not available:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note on Acceptance Criteria: The document primarily relies on the concept of "substantial equivalence" to the predicate device (Allied Healthcare/Timeter PCS414). Therefore, the implied acceptance criteria for performance metrics are that the DeVilbiss 8650D performs comparably to the predicate device in terms of pressure and flow output, sound level, temperature rise, and electrical safety. The specific numerical values for these criteria or the test results are not detailed in this 510(k) summary.

2. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance

This information is not available in the provided text. The testing described is for the device's physical and electrical performance, not a clinical study with a "test set" of patient data.

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

This information is not available as the submission does not describe a study involving expert review for establishing ground truth on patient data. The "testing" mentioned refers to engineering and safety tests of the compressor itself.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as there is no "test set" in the context of diagnostic performance involving human or AI interpretation.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The device is a compressor, not a diagnostic imaging or AI-assisted interpretation tool. The submission is for substantial equivalence based on engineering and safety performance.

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

This is not applicable. The device is a physical compressor, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this type of device (a compressor) would be related to its engineering specifications and safety standards, rather than clinical outcomes or pathology.

• Engineering Specifications: For pressure and flow output, the ground truth would be the defined output characteristics of the predicate device and established engineering standards.
• Safety Standards: For electrical safety and temperature, the "ground truth" is compliance with recognized standards like UL-544.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This is not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/machine learning device. The device itself is manufactured, not "trained."

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

This is not applicable as there is no training set.

Summary of Device Performance Testing from Section 4 of the 510(k) Summary:

The DeVilbiss 8650D was subjected to performance testing focusing on:

• Pressure and Flow Output: To ensure it can adequately drive pneumatic nebulizers.
• Sound Pressure Level: To confirm it operates at a low noise level as described.
• Temperature Rise: To ensure safe continuous operation.
• Shipping Performance: To ensure the device integrity is maintained during transportation.
• Electromagnetic Compatibility: To ensure it functions without interference and does not cause interference.

Agency Approvals / Standards:
The device is stated to meet the UL-544 Standard for Safety, Medical and Dental Equipment.

Conclusion stated in the 510(k):
The performance testing results did not indicate any safety and effectiveness concerns when compared to the predicate device, Allied Healthcare PCS 414, thus supporting the claim of substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device