Search Results

The Reusable SpO2 Sensors are indicated for continuous non-invasive monitoring of functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and pulse rate (PR) for adult (> 40 kg) and pediatric (10-50 kg) patients.

The proposed device, Reusable SpO2 Sensors are accessories to patient monitors, which are intended for continuous non-invasive monitoring of functional arterial oxygen saturation and pulse rate. The compatible patient monitor is EDAN iM50 with Nellcor SpO2 module (K113623).

The sensor shall be connected with its corresponding monitor. Oxygenation of blood is measured by detecting the infrared and red-light absorption characteristics of deoxygenated hemoglobin and oxygenated hemoglobin, which consists of a probe attached to the patient's finger. The sensor is connected to a data acquisition system which is used to calculate and display oxygen saturation levels and pulse rate conditions.

Each sensor has two LEDs, emitting both red and infrared light, and a photodiode. The light is emitted through human finger and received by a photodiode. Then the received signal is forwarded to the corresponding oximeter that amplifies the signal and an algorithm that calculates the ratio. The saturation value is determined by the percentage ratio of the oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO2) to the total amount of hemoglobin (Hb).

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study details for the Reusable SpO2 Sensor, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

This device is a Reusable SpO2 Sensor, an accessory to patient monitors used for continuous non-invasive monitoring of functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and pulse rate (PR) for adult (> 40 kg) and pediatric (10-50 kg) patients.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document specifically details performance criteria and claims for SpO2 and PR accuracy compared to a legally marketed predicate device.

Note: The document emphasizes substantial equivalence to the predicate device, meaning the new device's performance is demonstrated to be equivalent to a device already cleared by the FDA. The performance data presented are in direct comparison to the predicate's stated specifications.

Study Details Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The information provided is typical for a 510(k) submission, focusing on demonstrating substantial equivalence rather than a detailed standalone clinical study report.

2. Sample Sizes Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

• Test Set Sample Size: The document states that "Clinical hypoxia test results were obtained in human adult volunteers." However, the specific number of adult volunteers (sample size) used for the clinical accuracy testing is not provided in this summary.
• Data Provenance: The data appears to be prospective clinical data gathered specifically for this submission, as indicated by "Clinical testing has been performed under an approved protocol with subject informed consent." The country of origin for the data is not explicitly stated, but the submitting company and correspondent are based in Shenzhen, China.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications:

• This information is not provided in the document. For pulse oximetry clinical studies, ground truth is typically established by arterial blood gas analysis (co-oximetry), not by expert consensus on visual assessment or interpretation.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are typically relevant for studies involving human interpretation of medical images or data where subjective decisions are made. For a pulse oximetry study where ground truth is established by a quantitative measurement (co-oximetry), traditional adjudication methods as described are not applicable.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:

• No, an MRMC study was not done. MRMC studies are designed to compare the performance of human readers, often with and without AI assistance, especially in diagnostic imaging. This device is a sensor, and its accuracy is assessed quantitatively against a gold standard (co-oximetry), not through human reader interpretation. Therefore, questions about an effect size of human readers improving with AI assistance are not applicable to this type of device and study.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) was done:

• Yes, in essence. The clinical accuracy study ("Clinical hypoxia test results were obtained in human adult volunteers to validate the accuracy of Changke Reusable SpO2 Sensors versus arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) as determined by co-oximetry") assesses the performance of the device (including its internal algorithm for calculating SpO2 and PR) against a gold standard. While the device outputs data for human use, the accuracy assessment itself is effectively a standalone performance evaluation of the sensor and its processing capabilities.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The ground truth used for the clinical accuracy testing was arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) as determined by co-oximetry. Co-oximetry is considered the gold standard for measuring arterial oxygen saturation.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• This information is not provided in the 510(k) summary. For medical devices, particularly sensors, "training set" is often interpreted as the data used during the development and calibration of the device's algorithms. The summary focuses on the validation data (clinical studies) rather than internal R&D or algorithm training data.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

• As the sample size and specific details of a "training set" (in an AI/ML context) are not explicitly mentioned for this device's development, the method for establishing ground truth for any such internal data is not provided. However, it is inferred that similar, highly accurate methods (like co-oximetry) would have been used during the sensor's design and calibration phases to ensure its foundational accuracy.

Ask a specific question about this device

The devices are intended for spot checking or continuous monitoring of functional arterial oxygen saturation and pulse rate in non-invasive oximeter equipment. The sensors are reusable depending on models, and are intended for adult, pediatric or infant, depending on models. They shall be used in healthcare settings.

The proposed device, SpO2 Sensors are accessories to the oximeters, which are intended for spot checking or continuous monitoring of functional arterial oxygen saturation and pulse rate in noninvasive U.S. legally marketed oximeters or patient monitors. The sensors are reusable or disposable depending on models, and are intended for adult, pediatric or infant, depending on models.

The proposed devices measure, along with the corresponding oximeters, non-invasively, the arterial oxygen saturation of blood. The measurement method is based on the red and infrared light absorption of hemoglobin and oxyhemoglobin. Each sensor has two LEDs, emitting both red and infrared light, and a photodiode. The light is emitted through human finger and received by a photodiode. Then the received signal is forwarded to the corresponding oximeter that amplifies the signal and an algorithm that calculates the ratio. The saturation value is determined by the percentage ratio of the oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO2) to the total amount of hemoglobin (Hb).

The patient contact components include cable and sensor. The contact level is surface device and contact duration is limited contact (less than 24h).

This document describes the validation of SpO2 Sensors. Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document states that "Clinical hypoxia test results were obtained in human adult volunteers." While the specific number of volunteers is not explicitly stated in this summary, it is implied that a sufficient number participated to "validate the accuracy."
• Data Provenance: The data was obtained from clinical hypoxia tests conducted in human adult volunteers. The document does not specify the country of origin, but the submitting company is based in China. The study appears to be prospective as it involves active testing on human subjects.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications

The document does not provide details on the number or qualifications of experts involved in establishing the ground truth. It states that "arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) as determined by co-oximetry" was used as the ground truth. This suggests that the ground truth was established through a gold standard measurement technique rather than human expert interpretation of images or other data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. The ground truth was established by co-oximetry, which is a direct measurement, not an interpretation requiring adjudication.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No. This study is for an SpO2 sensor, not an AI or imaging device where human readers would interpret results. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not relevant to this device.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

Yes, in a sense. The primary performance evaluation (SpO2 and Pulse Accuracy) is an assessment of the device's ability to measure these parameters against a known ground truth (arterial oxygen saturation by co-oximetry). While the sensor is an accessory to an oximeter, its accuracy is evaluated inherently as a standalone measurement component interacting with the human body to produce data.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used was outcomes data/physiological measurement. Specifically, "arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) as determined by co-oximetry." Co-oximetry is a laboratory method considered a gold standard for measuring oxygen saturation in arterial blood.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This document describes the validation of a medical device (SpO2 sensor), not an AI algorithm that requires a separate training set. The device's underlying principles are based on established physics (red and infrared light absorption of hemoglobin), not machine learning from a large dataset.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

Not applicable, as there is no training set mentioned or implied for this type of medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device