Search Results

The HeartView system is an internet-based application intended for use by nuclear medicine or radiology practitioners and referring physicians for the automated processing, review, quantification, and multidimensional review of nuclear medicine cardiology medical images, and specifically, radionuclides distributed in the body using planar and tomographic short axis images.

HeartView may be used in various clinical settings including a hospital, clinic, imaging center, physician office, or remote locations.

The HeartView system implements algorithms for automatic quantification of myocardial perfusion single photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) as well as quantification of ejection fraction, wall motion, and thickening from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT images.

Gated results are presented as 3D plots that can be used to depict, localize, and/or quantify the distribution of radionuclide tracers and anatomical structures in scanned body tissue for clinical diagnostic purposes, including quantitative assessments of cardiac function (e.g., systolic and diastolic function, regional wall thickening, wall motion, transient ischemic dilation, and phase analysis).

The HeartView platform is a comprehensive internet-based application designed to process, review, and automatically perform quantitative analysis of cardiac nuclear medicine procedures. HeartView implements algorithms for automatic quantification of myocardial perfusion SPECT, as well as quantification of ejection fraction, wall motion, and thickening from gated myocardial perfusion SPECT. The algorithm takes short axis slices reconstructed from raw datasets of gated and averaged acquisitions in rest and stress, and operates in multi-dimension (3D), rather than processing individual slices separately. For gated datasets, it processes the dataset as a whole rather than processing each frame separately, which adds additional knowledge to the algorithm for its computations, and allows enforcement of the constraint that the mid-myocardium volume is constant during the whole heart beat cycle.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study details for the VidiStar HeartView, based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state formal "acceptance criteria" with specific numerical thresholds for performance metrics. Instead, it describes a comparative performance study against a predicate device. The implied acceptance criterion is that the subject device (VidiStar HeartView) is "comparable to the predicate device in terms of qualitative and quantitative output."

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "anonymized patient imaging studies" were used.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective). It only mentions "anonymized patient imaging studies."

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

• Number of Experts: One.
• Qualifications of Expert: "blinded independent cardiologist." No further detail on experience level (e.g., years of experience) is provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: "clinical review by a blinded independent cardiologist." This suggests a single reader assessment rather than an adjudication process involving multiple experts for consensus.

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

• MRMC Study: No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly described. The study involved a single "blinded independent cardiologist" for qualitative comparison and statistical comparison of software-calculated values.
• Effect Size of Human Readers with vs. without AI: Not applicable, as an MRMC study and AI-assisted performance evaluation of human readers were not conducted or reported.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• Standalone Performance: Yes, a standalone performance assessment was done for quantitative output. The device's algorithms for "automatic quantification of myocardial perfusion SPECT, as well as quantification of ejection fraction, wall motion, and thickening" were compared against the predicate device's software-calculated values using statistical software.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Quantitative Ground Truth: The "ground truth" for quantitative output was established by the software-calculated values of the predicate device (Xeleris 3.1 Processing and Review Workstation). This implies that the predicate device's outputs were considered the reference for comparison.
• Qualitative Ground Truth: For qualitative assessments, the "ground truth" was established by the "subjective clinical reading" of a "blinded independent cardiologist," compared against the predicate device. This suggests the cardiologist's assessment of either the raw images or the predicate device's output served as the reference for evaluating the subject device's qualitative output.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Training Set Sample Size: Not mentioned. The document primarily focuses on the validation/comparison study.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Training Set Ground Truth: Not mentioned. Since the training set size is not provided, neither is details on how its ground truth was established.

Ask a specific question about this device