Search Results

The Palladium High Flow Therapy System is intended to deliver warmed and humidified high-flow respiratory gases to spontaneously breathing adult and pediatric patients weighing at least 3.5 kg within hospital, sub-acute and homecare settings.

The Palladium High Flow Therapy System is designed to heat and humidify respiratory gases and deliver high flow respiratory therapy via a small-bore nasal cannula to spontaneously breathing pediatric and adult patients within hospital, sub-acute and homecare settings.

Palladium is portable, self-contained, AC driven or battery powered with high flow therapy driven by an internal blower room air source and supplied with external oxygen or other gas sources, which is the same as the predicate Vapotherm Flowrest® device.

Palladium utilizes similar semi-permeable small-bore tubing technology for humidification and integrity of a closed, single-use water path disposable as the reference Vapotherm Precision Flow® device.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the "Palladium High Flow Therapy System". It details the device's indications for use, its comparison to predicate devices, and non-clinical performance testing. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a standalone study with specific acceptance criteria and detailed quantitative results for the Palladium system's performance.

Based on the provided text, a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance, and details about a specific study proving the device meets these criteria, is not fully available in the requested format. The document describes several non-clinical tests (biocompatibility, electrical safety, software, and bench/performance testing) and states that the "results demonstrated that the device performance was met after conditioning and was substantially equivalent to the predicate device." However, it does not provide the specific numeric acceptance criteria or the measured performance values for the Palladium device in a clear, quantifiable manner for each test.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted based on your requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document describes general categories of performance testing and states that the outcomes met expectations or demonstrated substantial equivalence. Specific measurable acceptance criteria values and the actual results of the Palladium device (e.g., "Oxygen accuracy: ±X%" and "Measured: Y%") are not provided.

Regarding temperature accuracy, the comparison table states "Temperature Accuracy: SAME - K103316 ± 2 °C" for the subject device, indicating this was the acceptance criteria and presumably met. For other performance metrics, only a general statement of meeting performance and substantial equivalence is given. |

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

• Sample Size: Not specified for any of the non-clinical tests.
• Data Provenance: The tests are non-clinical (bench testing, lab-based safety, and performance evaluations), therefore no patient data or geographical provenance is applicable in the context of the supplied text. The company (Vapotherm, Inc.) is based in Exeter, NH, USA. The testing would have been conducted in a controlled lab environment.

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

• This information is not applicable. The documentation refers to non-clinical (bench) testing, software verification, and compliance with established standards. There is no mention of "ground truth" established by experts in the context of clinical expert review.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• This information is not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation of medical data by multiple human readers, which is not described here.

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 MRMC study was conducted or mentioned in this document. This is a 510(k) submission for a respiratory gas humidifier, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device.

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

• This is not applicable as the device is a physical medical device (humidifier), not an algorithm or AI system. Its performance is evaluated through engineering and physiological testing, not AI-centric standalone performance studies.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For the non-clinical performance and safety tests, the "ground truth" would be the objective measurements against pre-defined engineering specifications and internationally recognized standards (e.g., ISO, IEC). For example, temperature measurements against a calibrated reference, flow rate measurements, or chemical analysis for biocompatibility tests. It's based on technical standards and specifications, not expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the usual clinical sense.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/Machine Learning device that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable for the same reason as above.

Ask a specific question about this device