Search Results

LUCAS 2 Chest Compression System is to be used for performing external cardiac compressions on adult patients who have acute circulatory arrest defined as absence of spontaneous breathing and pulse, and loss of consciousness. LUCAS 2 must only be used in cases where chest compressions are likely to help the patient.

LUCAS 2 is an electrically powered mechanical chest compression system providing controlled automated chest compressions on adult patients who have acute circulatory arrest. LUCAS 2 consists of an upper part containing the electrically driven piston rod, which acts on the patients chest via a pressure pad. The pressure pad is surrounded by a suction cup. The support legs of the upper part are fastened to the back plate prior to starting compressions.

The provided text describes the Jolife LUCAS 2, an electrically powered mechanical chest compression system. However, the document only discusses the device's design, intended use, and substantial equivalence to predicate devices, along with regulatory approval. It does not include detailed information about specific acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the way typically expected for a medical device performance study, especially for AI/algorithm-based devices.

The "Testing" section broadly states that "Appropriate product testing was conducted and included a number of function tests during different operating conditions. These tests demonstrated that the functionality, safety, efficacy and capability of LUCAS 2 comply with the product specifications and safety standards and support substantial equivalence to predicate devices." This is a general statement and does not provide the specifics requested in your prompt.

Therefore, I cannot fully answer your request based on the provided text. The document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices rather than providing a detailed de novo clinical or performance study report with specific acceptance criteria and detailed study methodology.

Below is a breakdown of what can be inferred or what is explicitly missing based on your questions:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Not specified. The document mentions "a number of function tests during different operating conditions" but does not give sample sizes for any test sets or specific data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

• Not applicable/Not specified. This type of information is relevant for studies involving human interpretation or expert-driven assessments, typically for diagnostic or imaging devices. The LUCAS 2 is a mechanical chest compression system, and its performance evaluation would likely involve engineering and physiological metrics, not expert ground truth in the diagnostic sense. The document does not mention any expert panel for ground truth.

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

• Not applicable/Not specified. Similar to point 3, adjudication methods are typically used for expert assessments, which are not detailed or implied for this device's testing.

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:

• No. An MRMC study is not relevant for a mechanical chest compression device. This type of study assesses reader performance, typically in imaging. The LUCAS 2 is a standalone mechanical device, not an AI or imaging assistance tool for human readers.

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

• Yes, effectively. The "Testing" section implies standalone testing of the device's mechanical functions: "Appropriate product testing was conducted and included a number of function tests during different operating conditions." The device itself is a standalone mechanical system. The performance evaluated would be the device's ability to deliver compressions according to guidelines, maintain consistent operation, and ensure safety, independent of human interaction during the compression delivery. The function tests described are inherently standalone performance evaluations for a mechanical device.

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

• Not explicitly stated, but implied to be engineering/physiological specifications. For a mechanical chest compression device, "ground truth" would likely refer to its ability to meet predefined physical compression parameters (depth, rate, recoil) as per AHA guidelines, safety standards, and product specifications. This would be measured instrumentally rather than through expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the traditional sense used for diagnostic devices.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable/Not specified. This device is a mechanical system, not an AI/machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set."

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

• Not applicable/Not specified. As there is no AI/ML component or "training set" mentioned, this question is not relevant.

Summary of what is known from the document regarding testing:

• Device: LUCAS 2, an electrically powered mechanical chest compression system.
• Purpose of testing: To demonstrate functionality, safety, efficacy, and capability, and to support substantial equivalence to predicate devices (LUCAS 1, Thumper 1008, Autopulse Model 100).
• Nature of testing: "A number of function tests during different operating conditions."
• Outcome: "In all instances, the LUCAS 2 functioned as intended and all results observed were as expected."
• Type of equivalence: Substantial equivalence to predicate devices is claimed, meaning the new device has "the same intended use and substantially similar indications for use, basic overall function, and performance." It is compared to predicate devices like LUCAS 1 (cleared under K062401).

The provided text focuses on regulatory clearance via the 510(k) pathway, which often relies on demonstrating equivalence rather than extensive de novo clinical trials with detailed performance metrics and acceptance criteria for a novel technology.

Ask a specific question about this device