Search Results

The REMstar Auto with C-Flex CPAP System is intended to provide CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) for the treatment of adult Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) only. The REMstar Auto with C-Flex may be used in the home or hospital/institutional environment.
The REMstar Auto with C-Flex CPAP System is a CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) device designed for the treatment of adult Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) only. The device is for use in the home or hospital/institutional environment.

The Respironics REMstar Auto with C-Flex CPAP System is a microprocessor controlled blower based continuous positive pressure system. Respironics is adding an additional therapy feature to provide pressure relief during exhalation. The REMstar Auto with C-Flex CPAP System provides CPAP or Auto CPAP therapy with or without the C-Flex function and is intended for use with a patient circuit that is used to connect the device to the patient interface device (mask). A typical patient circuit consists of a six-foot disposable or reusable smooth lumen 22mm tubing, a method of venting exhaled gases, and a patient interface device.

The provided text does not contain detailed acceptance criteria for the device's performance, nor does it describe a specific study proving the device meets acceptance criteria with quantitative results. Instead, it makes a general statement that "Design verification tests were performed on the Respironics REMstar Auto with C-Flex CPAP System as a result of the risk analysis and product requirements. All tests were verified to meet the required acceptance criteria."

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from the given text.

Here's a breakdown of what can be inferred or explicitly stated:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

   • Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in terms of specific performance metrics or thresholds. The text only mentions "required acceptance criteria" in a general sense.
   • Reported Device Performance: Not provided in quantitative terms. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence rather than presenting detailed performance data against specific criteria.

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

   • Not mentioned. The text refers to "Design verification tests" but does not specify the sample size of the devices or any patient data used for these tests. Data provenance is also not provided.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience):

   • Not applicable/Not mentioned. The submission describes a medical device (CPAP system) that directly provides therapy, not a diagnostic imaging or AI-driven system that requires expert ground truth for a test set in the traditional sense of a clinical or image-based study.

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

   • Not applicable/Not mentioned. This typically relates to expert review of diagnostic assessments, which is not the focus of this device submission.

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 done. This device is a therapeutic CPAP system and does not involve "human readers" or "AI assistance" in the context of diagnostic interpretation.

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

   • Not applicable in the context of "algorithm only." The device is a "microprocessor controlled blower based continuous positive pressure system" with a C-Flex function. Performance would be assessed for the device's function in delivering pressure and managing C-Flex, not as a standalone AI algorithm. The text implies the device's overall performance was tested, but details are not provided.

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

   • Not explicitly stated. For a therapeutic device like this, "ground truth" would likely refer to engineering specifications, physiological measurements (e.g., pressure delivery accuracy, response to exhalation), and potentially clinical outcomes in broader studies (though not detailed here for this submission).

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable/Not mentioned. This device does not describe an AI that learns from a "training set" in the machine learning sense. The device is "microprocessor controlled" but operates based on defined algorithms and parameters.

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

   • Not applicable/Not mentioned for the same reasons as #8.

Summary based on available information:

The submission confirms that "Design verification tests were performed" and "All tests were verified to meet the required acceptance criteria." However, it does not provide the specific details of these acceptance criteria or the quantitative results of the tests. The focus of the provided text is on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on intended use, operating principle, technology, and manufacturing process, rather than presenting detailed performance data from a clinical or diagnostic study.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (as much as can be inferred):

Ask a specific question about this device