Search Results

Detection and displays blood velocity motion, peak velocity, mean velocity and heart rate.
Evaluation of blood flow in patients with peripheral vascular disease, heart sounds and rates.

The Echo Sounder ES-101EX 8M is a single-handed vascular Doppler system that utilizes the well understood principle of Doppler shift of an ultrasound signal to detect the flow of blood within arteries and display heart rate.
The unit amplifies the high frequency oscillation output and then supplies this to the transmitter transducer. The high frequency voltage is converted to ultrasound by the transducer and is transmitted to external objects. The ultrasound transmitted by the transducer movers straight through biophysical object(s), and is reflected by the moving object (fetal heartbeat etc.). The reflected ultrasound is received by the receiving transducer and is converted into electronic signals again.
The converted electronic signals are amplified and then are detected. After removing unnecessary noise signals and improving S/N ratio at the filter circuit, the Doppler shift signals are amplified and are converted to audible sound pressure through a speaker or a headset. Simultaneously the signals are applied to the heart rate LCD display.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the Echo Sounder ES-101EX 8M Vascular Doppler. However, it does not contain the detailed acceptance criteria or the specific study details (like sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, or MRMC studies) that you have requested.

The document states: "The Echo Sounder ES-101EX 8M Doppler device has been subjected to extensive safety, performance, and validations prior to release. Final testing for the system includes various performance tests designed to ensure that the device meets all of its functional requirements and performance specifications. Safety tests have further been performed to ensure the device complies with applicable industry and safety standards."

This is a general statement that tests were conducted, but it doesn't provide the specifics of those tests, their acceptance criteria, or the reported performance outcomes. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on similar characteristics and general safety/performance testing, rather than presenting a detailed comparative effectiveness study with specific quantitative performance metrics against pre-defined acceptance criteria.

Therefore, many of your requested points cannot be answered from the provided text.

Here is a summary of what can be extracted and a clear indication of what is not present:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Not Provided in Detail)

The document generally states that "various performance tests designed to ensure that the device meets all of its functional requirements and performance specifications" were conducted. However, no specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy targets) or reported device performance metrics against predefined criteria are listed.

Study Information

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

   • Not provided. The submission mentions "performance tests" and "functional requirements and performance specifications" but does not detail them or the results.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

   • Not provided. No information on the sample size or type of data used for testing is given.

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 provided. There is no mention of expert involvement in establishing ground truth for any test set.

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

   • Not provided. No information on adjudication methods is present.

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 / Not provided. The device described (Echo Sounder ES-101EX 8M Vascular Doppler) is a diagnostic tool that detects blood flow and heart rate. It is not an AI-assisted interpretation device that would involve human readers improving with AI assistance. The submission does not mention any MRMC study.

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

   • Not explicitly described as a "standalone algorithm performance study" in the modern sense. The document states: "Final testing for the system includes various performance tests designed to ensure that the device meets all of its functional requirements and performance specifications." This implied standalone device performance was evaluated, but no specific metrics or study design are given.

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

   • Not provided. The document does not specify how ground truth was established for any internal testing.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable / Not provided. This device is a traditional Doppler system, not an AI or machine learning algorithm that requires a training set in the typical sense.

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

   • Not applicable / Not provided. As it's not an AI/ML device, there's no training set or associated ground truth establishment.

In essence, the provided 510(k) summary is a high-level overview focused on establishing substantial equivalence through a comparison of basic characteristics and general safety/performance statements, rather than detailed clinical study data with specific acceptance criteria and performance metrics often seen with new or AI-driven technologies.

Ask a specific question about this device