Search Results

The Esprit ventilator is a microprocessor controlled, electrically powered, mechanical ventilator. It is intended for use by qualified medical personnel in providing continuous or intermittent ventilatory support to adult and pediatric patients as prescribed by a physician. The Esprit Ventilator is intended for use in either invasive or non-invasive applications.

The NICO-Esprit Interface is a software upgrade to the Esprit Ventilator, which allows the bi-directional communication of the devices to facilitate the transfer of NICO parameters to the Esprit Ventilator as well as the transfer of a patient's breath type information and FiO2 from the Esprit to the NICO Monitor.

The provided text describes a Special 510(k) for a device modification: the Esprit Ventilator with the NICO-Esprit Interface. This application focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to already marketed predicate devices, particularly regarding safety and effectiveness, for a software upgrade that allows bi-directional communication between the Esprit Ventilator and the NICO Monitor.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details:

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
   The document does not specify a sample size for a test set or data provenance in the context of clinical performance or accuracy. The testing described is primarily focused on safety and software validation rather than a clinical performance study with patient data.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
   This information is not provided. The document describes engineering and software validation, not a study involving expert-established ground truth for patient data or diagnoses.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:
   This information is not provided. Adjudication methods are typically relevant for studies involving human interpretation or clinical outcomes, which are not detailed here.

4. 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:
   No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The device modification is a software upgrade for ventilator communication, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
   The provided text describes "Software validation testing," which evaluates the algorithm's performance against its design and system requirements. This could be interpreted as a form of "standalone" evaluation of the software's functionality and correctness, but it's not a standalone clinical performance study in the way it might be for a diagnostic AI algorithm. The device itself (ventilator) is always used with human-in-the-loop operation by medical personnel.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
   For the safety and software validation, the "ground truth" would be the defined engineering specifications, regulatory standards (like IEC 60601-1-2, UL 2601), and the FDA's software guidance (1998). The software was validated to ensure it met these predetermined requirements, not against clinical outcomes or expert consensus on patient data.

7. The sample size for the training set:
   This information is not applicable/provided. The document describes a software upgrade for an existing medical device, not a machine learning or AI model that typically requires a training set. The validation performed seems to be traditional software testing against defined requirements.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   This information is not applicable/provided as there is no mention of a training set for an AI model.

Ask a specific question about this device