Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K182915
    Date Cleared
    2019-02-13

    (118 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    876.5980
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Predicate For
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The ENvizion Medical ENvue System is designed to aid qualified operators in the placement of the ENvizion Medical Enteral Feeding Tube of 10 Fr and 12 Fr into the stomach or small intestine of adult patients requiring enteral feeding. The ENvizion Medical ENvue System is intended as an adjunct to current placement practices for assisting clinical practitioners who place feeding tubes.

    The ENvizion Medical Enteral Feeding Tube (EFT) has been specifically designed for use with the ENvue System and is intended for placement in the stomach or small intestine. It is intended for use in adult patients who require intermittent or continuous feeding via the oro/nasoenteric route. The EFT is intended only to be used with a feeding pump and is not compatible with gravity-based feeding bags.

    Device Description

    The ENvizion Medical ENvue System is an electro-mechanical device with embedded software designed to aid in the placement of the ENvizion Medical Enteral Feeding Tube, which is an enteral feeding tube placed into the stomach or small intestine of patients requiring enteral feeding. The ENvue System tracks the Enteral Feeding Tube (EFT) as it progresses through the oro/nasoenteric route down the esophagus, into the stomach and to the small intestine anatomy and displays the placement pathway in real time during placement is completed, the user disconnects the ENvue from the EFT. The EFT connects to a feeding pump using ENFit connections.

    AI/ML Overview

    Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the ENvizion Medical ENvue System and Enteral Feeding Tube, based on the provided document:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., specific accuracy thresholds) for the device's performance in terms of aiding tube placement. Instead, it focuses on the successful completion of various tests to demonstrate safety and effectiveness and states that "the device successfully passed all of the testing and the results demonstrate the device is safe, effective, and performs as well or better than the predicate device."

    Here's a table summarizing the tests performed, which indirectly serve as acceptance criteria:

    Acceptance Criteria (Tests Performed)Reported Device Performance
    BiocompatibilitySuccessfully passed
    Dimensional InspectionSuccessfully passed
    Liquid Leakage TestingSuccessfully passed
    Visual InspectionSuccessfully passed
    Tensile Strength TestingSuccessfully passed
    Flow Rate TestingSuccessfully passed
    Tubing Stiffness ComparisonSuccessfully passed
    Simulated UseSuccessfully passed
    Packaging ValidationSuccessfully passed
    Shelf Life ValidationSuccessfully passed
    Gastric Fluid CompatibilitySuccessfully passed
    Software ValidationSuccessfully passed
    IEC 60601-1 Electrical SafetySuccessfully passed by conforming to standard
    IEC 60601-1-2 Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)Successfully passed by conforming to standard
    Summative UsabilitySuccessfully passed
    Comparative TestingSuccessfully passed
    MR Compatibility TestingSuccessfully passed
    Human Clinical Study (Safety & Effectiveness)"Showed no device guidance-related adverse events and no serious adverse events of any kind occurred...performed safely and effectively without any guidance related incidents."

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

    The "test set" for the human clinical study consisted of:

    • Sample Size: Data pooled from 58 subjects.
    • Data Provenance: The study was a prospective, single-center clinical trial. The country of origin is not explicitly stated in this summary, but the manufacturer is based in Israel.

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

    The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing ground truth in the clinical study. It mentions the system "is designed to aid qualified operators," but doesn't detail how the correctness of tube placement (ground truth) was definitively determined independent of the device. Given the nature of feeding tube placement, ground truth often relies on imaging (like X-ray) or pH testing by medical professionals, but this isn't detailed here.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    The document does not describe a specific adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the test set in terms of determining ground truth for tube placement outcomes.

    5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs without AI Assistance

    No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study, as typically described for AI systems evaluating images, was not explicitly mentioned. The clinical study focused on the device's safety and effectiveness as an adjunct to current practices and its ability to guide placement, rather than comparing human performance with and without the device. The device itself aids in the placement process, not in interpreting diagnostic information where an MRMC reader study would be more common.

    6. If a Standalone (i.e., Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

    No. The device, the ENvue System, is "designed to aid qualified operators" in the placement of the feeding tube. It is inherently a human-in-the-loop device, displaying the placement pathway in real-time for the user. Therefore, a standalone (algorithm only) performance assessment would not be relevant to its intended use.

    7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

    The type of ground truth used in the clinical study for verifying tube placement is not explicitly detailed. However, for feeding tube placement systems, common methods for confirming correct placement (i.e., ground truth) typically involve:

    • X-ray imaging (radiography)
    • pH testing of aspirate
    • Auscultation (listening for air insufflation)

    The document notes that the feeding tube itself is "radiopaque...for X-ray visualization," suggesting that X-ray confirmation would be a standard part of practice. The predicate device's indications also mention "confirmation or correct tube placement by acceptable hospital protocol is required."

    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

    The document does not provide information on a "training set" sample size. The ENvizion Medical ENvue system is a device that utilizes electromagnetic sensing technology to guide tube placement. While it contains embedded software ("Software Validation" is listed as a test), this is not an AI/Machine Learning diagnostic device in the traditional sense that would require a large training dataset for model development. The software likely controls the electromagnetic tracking and display, and its validation would involve functional testing rather than a training dataset from patient cases.

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

    Since there is no mention of a training set in the context of an AI/ML algorithm that learns from data, the concept of establishing ground truth for a training set is not applicable here. The system relies on physical electromagnetic principles to track the tube.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1