Search Results

The Vital Signs Patch (VSP) system is intended to be used on patients in a clinical environment for the continuous, noninvasive monitoring of ECG, Heart Rate (HR), respiration rate, surface temperature, and arterial blood oxygen saturation (intended use group adults 21 and above), when prescribed by a physician or other qualified healthcare professional.

The Vital Signs Patch (VSP in short) system is designed to monitor selected vital signs of patients in a clinical environment. The VSP system is comprised of the following components: Physical Patch, Brain - VSP Transmitter, Gateway mobile device, Clinical Backend. The Patch is attached to the patient's chest. The Brain plugs into a cradle on the Patch and is connected to the Patch with a 16-pin connector. The Brain receives the power from the Pattery; the data from the sensors are transmitted using the 16-pin connector. The Gateway includes a dedicated, medical SW application (also known as the Gateway application) designed by LifeWatch Technologies. The Brain transmits data to the Gateway application using the RF component. The patient can manually trigger an event by the pressing a button on the Brain. In addition, the Brain contains a 32MB Flash memory chip that can store 6-10 hours of data in case of communication failure with the Gateway. All data received from the Brain is recorded and stored on the Gateway. In addition, the Gateway can be used to view vital sign signals received from the Brain and to transmit the data to a Monitoring Center via the internet by the Wi-Fi network. The VSP is not intended for use on patients with life threatening arrhythmias; hence it is not intended for patients in the ICU. The internal LifeWatch Technologies Ltd. Part Number of the Vital Signs Patch system is CG-1101B; this model serves also as the predicate device (cleared in K132407) for this Special submission.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Vital Signs Patch (VSP) system, which is a modified version of a previously cleared device. It details product information and the modifications made, but it does not contain detailed information about specific acceptance criteria, study methodologies, or performance metrics in a quantitative way.

The document states:
"The 510(k) summarizes the testing that was performed, the acceptance criteria and the results of the testing."
However, this summary itself does NOT provide those details. It explicitly mentions that the full 510(k) contains this information, but this extract does not. Therefore, I cannot construct a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance from the given text.

Based on the information provided in the extract, here's what can be inferred or stated about the requested points:

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

   • Not provided in the extract. The document states that the full 510(k) summarizes this, but the extract itself only mentions that testing was performed, acceptance criteria were met, and results did not raise new safety or effectiveness issues.

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

   • Not provided in the extract. The document mentions "design verification and validation testing of the modified device have been performed" but gives no details on sample size, data type, or origin.

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 provided in the extract. The nature of the device (vital signs monitor) suggests that ground truth would likely come from standard, calibrated medical equipment rather than expert human interpretation in the same way an AI diagnostic tool might, but this is not explicitly stated.

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

   • Not provided in the extract.

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/Not provided. This device is a vital signs monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging tool for human readers. No mention of human readers or AI assistance in interpretation is present.

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

   • Not explicitly stated, but implied. The device is a "continuous, non-invasive monitoring" system for various vital signs. Its primary function is to measure and record these signs. Its performance would inherently be a "standalone" measurement against a gold standard (e.g., how accurately it measures heart rate compared to an ECG machine), rather than an algorithm assisting human interpretation. However, specific details of such standalone performance or the reference standard against which it was compared are not in this excerpt.

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

   • Not explicitly stated. For vital signs, the ground truth would typically be established by established, gold-standard medical measurement devices (e.g., a clinically validated ECG for heart rate, a separate temperature probe for temperature, a hospital-grade oximeter for SpO2). The document mentions "performance specifications," implying comparison to such standards, but doesn't detail them.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not provided in the extract. The document primarily concerns modifications to an existing cleared device ("Special 510(k)"), so extensive new training data might not have been central to this specific submission, but this is speculation.

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

   • Not provided in the extract.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Vital Signs Patch (VSP) system is intended to be used on patients in a clinical environment for the continuous, non-invasive monitoring of ECG, Heart Rate (HR), respiration rate, surface temperature, and arterial blood oxygen saturation (intended use group adults 21 and above), when prescribed by a physician or other qualified healthcare professional.

The Vital Signs Patch (VSP) system is designed to monitor vital signs of patients. The internal LifeWatch Technologies Ltd. (LWT in short) Part Number of the VSP is CG-1101B. The VSP system consists of the following components: Vital Signs Patch, VSP transmitter ("Brain"), Gateway, Clinical Backend.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Vital Signs Patch system, based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance metrics. Instead, it states that the device was subjected to extensive verification/validation testing to ensure it meets all functional and performance requirements and is fit for its intended use. The performance details are primarily linked to the adherence to voluntary performance standards and a specific clinical trial for SpO2.

Here's an attempt to infer and summarize based on the provided text, linking performance to the mentioned standards:

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document explicitly mentions a "Clinical trial of the SPO2 function." However, it does not specify the sample size for this clinical trial or for any other performance test.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. It also does not specify if the studies were retrospective or prospective, although "Clinical trial of the SpO2 function" typically implies a prospective study.

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

The document does not provide information on the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth for any of the tests, including the SpO2 clinical trial.

4. Adjudication Method

The document does not specify any adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) used for the test set.

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

There is no mention of a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study being performed, nor any effect size of human readers improving with or without AI assistance. The device is for monitoring vital signs, not for assisting human interpretation of complex medical images or data that would typically involve a MRMC study.

6. Standalone Performance Study

The document indicates that studies were performed on the device's functional and performance requirements. The Arrhythmia Detection Algorithm Performance Validation and the Clinical trial of the SPO2 function suggest standalone performance evaluations of these specific features, focusing on the algorithm's accuracy in detecting arrhythmias and the SpO2 sensor's performance against a reference. While not explicitly termed "standalone performance study," the objective of these tests, especially against recognized standards, inherently assesses the algorithm/device performance without constant human intervention in data collection during the measurement phase. The device then presents data to a human for diagnosis.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• For SpO2: A "Clinical trial" was conducted. In such trials for pulse oximetry, the ground truth is typically established by comparing the device's readings against arterial blood gas (ABG) measurements from a co-oximeter, which is considered the gold standard for SpO2. This is implied by the nature of such a clinical trial conforming to ISO 80601-2-61.
• For ECG/Arrhythmia Detection: The ground truth for algorithm performance validation against standards like ANSI/AAMI/ISO EC57 often involves using truth-labeled ECG databases (e.g., MIT-BIH Arrhythmia Database) or synchronously recorded and extensively reviewed ECGs by expert cardiologists.
• For other vital signs (HR, Respiration, Temperature): Ground truth would typically be established by comparing the device's readings against established reference methods or calibrated medical devices known for their accuracy.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not provide any information regarding the sample size used for the training set for any of the algorithms or features.

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

The document does not provide any information on how the ground truth for the training set was established.

Ask a specific question about this device