Search Results

The ST Review Station is intended to allow Physicians and/or Clinical personnel from ER. Cath Lab, ICU, and other related settings to retrospectively review/analyze stored ECG data. By being able review/analyze ECG trends, including ST segment measurements, Clinicians and/or Physicians have access to information to assist in their ability to detect changes in a patients physiological condition and therefore enabling them to respond accordingly to a patients medical needs.

The ST Review Station is an adjunct to the ELI 100/STM Electrocardingraph (12-I.ead Diagnostic Electrocardiograph) to provide rapidly responsive trend data originating from the ELI 100/STM Electrocardiouraph and associated patient population. The ST Review Station utilizes a PC based operating system with specially developed software that provides for the means to graphically view and/or present the ECG data captured and stored by the ELI 100/STM (legally marketed predicate device - K895232), including ST segment measurements.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the ST Review Station, a device that reviews and stores ECG data and ST segment measurements. However, it does not contain specific acceptance criteria or a detailed study proving the device meets those criteria through quantitative performance metrics.

Instead, the document primarily focuses on establishing "substantial equivalence" of the ST Review Station to predicate devices (ELI 100/STM and ST Central Station) by comparing features. The "Performance Data Conclusion" section makes a general statement about verification and validation but lacks the specific details requested in the prompt.

Therefore, I cannot provide the detailed information for all your requested points. Below is a summary based on the available information:

ST Review Station Study Information

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Based on the provided document, explicit quantitative acceptance criteria and their corresponding reported device performance metrics are NOT available.

The document states: "To ensure that the ST Review Station did not alter the integrity of the ECG data and ST segment measurements received and stored from the ELI 100/STM, the ST Review Station was subjected to verification and validation practices appropriate to determine that it is safety and effective for its intended use."

And concludes: "The verification and validation tests performed demonstrated that the ECG data and ST segment measurements received and stored by the ST Review Station maintained their integrity as obtained from the ELI 100/STM. Therefore, supporting the determination of substantial equivalence while demonstrating its safety and effectiveness."

This indicates that integrity of data was the primary performance requirement, but no specific numerical targets or results are presented.

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

• Sample Size: Not specified.
• Data Provenance: The document implies that the device receives and stores data "from the ELI 100/STM." The ELI 100/STM itself is an "Electrocardiograph (12-Lead Diagnostic Electrocardiograph)." This suggests the data is clinical ECG data, but details like country of origin or whether it was retrospective or prospective are not provided.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.
• Given the nature of the device (review and storage of existing data), the "ground truth" likely refers to the "integrity" of the data as passed through the system. This implies a comparison against the original data from the ELI 100/STM, rather than a clinical interpretation by experts for the purpose of algorithm evaluation.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not specified. (Likely not applicable in the sense of clinical adjudication, since the focus is on data integrity, not diagnostic accuracy.)

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• Not done. The device's intended use is to "retrospectively review/analyze stored ECG data" and "assist in their ability to detect changes in a patients physiological condition." It is not described as an AI/CAD device that provides interpretations or assists human readers in a diagnostic task in a way that would warrant an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance. The focus is on data display and storage capabilities.

6. Standalone Performance Study

• Yes, in the sense that the system's ability to maintain data integrity was assessed. The "verification and validation practices" were likely conducted on the software and hardware system itself. However, it's not a standalone diagnostic algorithm performance study in the typical AI/CAD sense. The device's primary function is to accurately process, display, and store data from another device (ELI 100/STM).

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Data integrity against the source device (ELI 100/STM). The ground truth would be the original ECG data and ST segment measurements as recorded by the ELI 100/STM. The study would verify that the ST Review Station accurately received, stored, and displayed this data without alteration.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. The ST Review Station is described as a software-based system for viewing and storing ECG data, not a machine learning or AI-based device that would require a "training set" in the context of developing an algorithm.

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

• Not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device