Search Results

The EEG monitor Narcotrend serves the purpose of registering and displaying EEG signals and thus monitoring the state of the brain. It was developed specifically for use in operating rooms, intensive care units, and for clinical research. The Narcotrend includes the Narcotrend Index, a processed EEG parameter which may be used as an aid in monitoring the effects of certain anesthetic agents.

The Narcotrend is a stand-alone EEG monitor including the following components: Preamplifier, Monitor for data analysis and display, System lead (connects preamplifier and monitor), Patient lead (connects the electrodes with the preamplifier). The Narcotrend records and processes data of one or two channels of EEG. The monitor display includes the following: Raw EEG, Power spectrum, Processed EEG parameters including spectral parameters, EEG stage, and the Narcotrend Index (current values and trend plots).

The provided 510(k) summary for the Narcotrend Compact 4.0 EEG Monitor includes some information related to acceptance criteria and supporting studies, but it lacks many of the specific details requested in the prompt. Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and where there are gaps:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Table:

The document states: "Results of randomized controlled clinical trials demonstrate equal effectiveness of the Narcotrend and the predicate device regarding the assessment of hypnotic drug effects during general anesthesia."

This is a high-level statement of the comparative effectiveness the device aims to achieve, but it doesn't provide specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., specific accuracy thresholds, sensitivity, specificity, or agreement metrics) or the reported performance against those criteria.

Detailed Study Information:

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

   • Sample Size: Not specified.
   • Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin or whether the clinical trials were retrospective or prospective. "Randomized controlled clinical trials" typically imply prospective studies.

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

   • Number of Experts: Not specified.
   • Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.

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

   • Not specified.

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:

   • The document mentions "randomized controlled clinical trials" comparing the Narcotrend to the predicate device. However, it does not explicitly state that this was an MRMC study or that it focused on the improvement of human readers with AI assistance. The Narcotrend is an EEG monitor with a processed index, which aids in monitoring. The comparison is between the device's performance (Narcotrend Index) and the predicate device's index (likely BIS), not necessarily human reader performance with/without AI. Therefore, the concept of "effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance" as typically applied in AI-assisted diagnostic imaging studies isn't directly applicable or addressed in this context.

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

   • The study described compares the Narcotrend (device) to the predicate device. Both generate an index. The "Narcotrend Index" is a processed EEG parameter. The study inherently evaluates the performance of this algorithm/device in generating that index. Thus, it can be inferred that a standalone performance evaluation of the device's output (the index) was part of these clinical trials.

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

   • The "ground truth" for assessing "hypnotic drug effects during general anesthesia" would typically involve clinical endpoints related to the depth of anesthesia, such as patient movement, hemodynamic responses to surgical stimuli, or clinical scales (e.g., Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale - MOAA/S, or similar scales for depth of consciousness during anesthesia). The document does not explicitly state the specific ground truth used.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not specified. The document only mentions "clinical trials" which are typically for validation/testing, not training. Details about the development and training of the Narcotrend algorithm itself are not provided in this summary.

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

   • Not specified, as information about a training set is absent.

Summary of Gaps:

The 510(k) summary provides a high-level claim of "equal effectiveness" but lacks granular details common in modern AI/ML device submissions, such as:

• Specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, concordance metrics).
• Metrics of the Narcotrend's performance against these criteria.
• Exact sample sizes for clinical trials.
• Detailed demographics or provenance of study data.
• Specific ground truth methodology.
• Information on expert qualifications or adjudication.
• Details regarding the training dataset or its ground truth establishment.

This is likely due to the age of the submission (2004), as regulatory expectations and reporting standards for clinical validation, particularly for software and AI-enabled devices, have evolved significantly since then. The focus for this older submission was primarily on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through general clinical effectiveness without the granular statistical breakdowns common today.

Ask a specific question about this device