Search Results

The 740 Ventilator System is used to provide continuous ventilation to patient's requiring respiratory support. This device is used for a wide range of patients from pediatric to adult and for a wide variety of clinical conditions.

The device is a low-cost, critical care ventilator intended to provide continuous ventilation for pediatric and adult patients. The 740 Ventilator supplies mandatory or spontaneous breaths. A mandatory (or assisted) breath provides the patient with a preset tidal volume, peak flow, waveform, and oxygen concentration. A spontaneous breath allows the patient inspiratory flows of up to 300 L/min, with or without pressure support. The 740 Ventilator offers three modes of ventilation: Assist/control (A/C), Spontaneous (SPONT), and Synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV). The 740 Ventilator offers two breathing types: Volume-Controlled Ventilation (VCV) and Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV). The 740 Ventilator includes two microcontrollers: 1) the breath delivery microcontroller which controls ventilation and 2) the user interface microcontroller which manages the user interface and monitors ventilator and patient data. This ventilator utilizes a piston-based breath delivery system. A proprietary technique is emploved in which oxygen under a regulated and constant high pressure is pulsed for precisely timed intervals via one of two solenoid valves as the piston is retracting. Piston retraction entrains room air plus the pulsed oxygen into the cylinder where the two gases mix resulting in the desired F.O2. The ventilator's mixing technique allows ventilation without the need for a blender, compressor, or hospital-grade wall air. The operator communicates with the ventilator electronics via membrane keys on the user interface. An optical rotary encoder and accept key (ACCEPT) are used to change and accept settings. An LCD message display window enhances or augments visual display of alarms, settings, modes, menus, conditions, technical alerts and specialized testing procedures.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Puritan-Bennett 740 Ventilator System. It describes the device, its intended use, and claims substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, the document does not contain a dedicated section outlining specific acceptance criteria or a detailed study designed to prove the device meets such criteria with reported performance metrics, statistical analyses, or specific outcome measures.

Instead, the document states generally that: "The combined testing and analysis of results provides assurance that the device meets it's specifications and is safe and effective for its intended use." It also mentions various testing conducted in accordance with FDA guidance and international standards (e.g., software design and development, environmental and electrical testing, performance testing).

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer all the detailed questions as the specific information requested is not present in the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of what can be inferred or stated based on the provided text, and what information is missing:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details (Based on available information)

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

   • Information Not Provided: The document does not specify any sample sizes for a "test set" in the context of clinical or performance data. The testing mentioned appears to be engineering validation (e.g., software, electrical, environmental) rather than a clinical study with a patient test set. Data provenance is also not mentioned.

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

   • Information Not Provided: As no specific "test set" or clinical study for establishing ground truth is described, this information is not available.

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

   • Information Not Provided: No clinical study or test set requiring adjudication is described.

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 study was not done. This device is a continuous ventilator, not an imaging device or diagnostic tool that would typically involve human "readers" or AI assistance in a diagnostic context. The document describes engineering testing and compliance with standards rather than clinical comparative effectiveness studies against an "AI."

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

   • Not applicable in the context of this device. The "algorithm" here refers to the software controlling the ventilator. Its performance is inherent to the device's function, not a separate standalone diagnostic algorithm. The device itself is designed to provide continuous ventilation, implying a human-in-the-loop (clinician setting parameters) for its operation. The performance testing ensured the device (including its internal algorithms) met specifications.

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

   • Information Not Provided: For the engineering and compliance testing described, "ground truth" would likely relate to established engineering standards, physical measurements, and functional requirements rather than clinical ground truth like pathology or outcomes data. No specific clinical ground truth establishment is mentioned.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable in the context of this device as described. The device's operation is based on programmed logic and control systems, not machine learning or AI models that require a "training set" in the modern sense.

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

   • Not applicable (see point 7).

Ask a specific question about this device