Search Results

The StimLab Cardiac stimulator is intended to be used for diagnostic electrical stimulation of the heart for the purpose of initiation and termination of tachyarrhythmias, refractory measurements and measurements of electrical conduction.

The StimLab™ is an EPS320 cardiac stimulator modified by the addition of a remote bedside touch monitor. The system consists of a manually controllable pulse generator issuing standard cardiac pacing pulses, normally controlled by a separate computer containing a graphic touch user interface and pre-programmed complex stimulation patterns suited to electrophysiology (EP) studies. In the StimLab™, a second remotely locatable beside control touch screen duplicates the video display and touch controls allowing verification and control of stimulator settings from two locations, one typically located in an electrophysiology laboratory central control room and the second at the operating table. The device is not a life support device and makes no diagnoses.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the StimLab™ Dual Control Computerized Diagnostic Programmable Cardiac Stimulator. It describes the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not include detailed information regarding acceptance criteria, specific device performance metrics, or a study design with sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment.

Therefore, many of the requested sections regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them cannot be filled from the provided text. The document focuses on regulatory clearance based on substantial equivalence, not on a detailed performance study with specific quantitative acceptance criteria.

Here's an attempt to answer based only on the provided text, indicating where information is missing:

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

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

• Sample Size: Not specified in the document.
• Data Provenance: Not specified in the document. It mentions "product testing," but details about the origin or type of data involved are absent.
• Retrospective/Prospective: Not specified in the document.

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 specified. The document does not describe a study involving expert-established ground truth for a test set. The review is based on substantial equivalence to a predicate device, which implies that the predicate device's performance (established through prior testing/clinical use) serves as the benchmark.

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

• Not applicable/Not specified. No adjudication method is mentioned as there's no described test set requiring expert adjudication.

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

• Not applicable. The StimLab™ is described as a "dual control computerized diagnostic programmable cardiac stimulator," not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. It's a stimulator for diagnostic electrical stimulation of the heart. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with/without AI assistance would not be relevant to this device.

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

• Not applicable. The device is a "stimulator" with "manually controllable pulse generator" and "graphic touch user interface." It is not an algorithm working independently to make diagnoses. The document explicitly states: "The device is not a life support device and makes no diagnoses." Its purpose is to facilitate diagnostic procedures by stimulating the heart.

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

• Not specified. Given the nature of a cardiac stimulator, "ground truth" would typically relate to the accuracy of the stimulation parameters, electrical output, timing, and safety, as compared to established physiological responses or engineering specifications. The document only states "conformance to product specification and substantial equivalence to the predicate device" as the basis for testing.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Not specified. This device is hardware with software control for stimulation, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a training set in the conventional sense.

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

• Not applicable/Not specified. As mentioned above, there is no indication of a "training set" for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device