Search Results

The LumiGuide Equipment is a visualization device with Fiber Optic RealShape (FORS) technology intended to aid the positioning and navigation of a connected LumiGuide Wire and, optionally, a catheter during endovascular procedures of the peripheral, aortic and aortic side branch vasculature, by creating a 3D image in real-time of the connected LumiGuide Wire and, of an endovascular catheter, when combined with a LumiGuide 3D Hub.

The LumiGuide Wire is an angiographic guidewire with Fiber Optic RealShape (FORS) technology, intended to direct a catheter in endovascular procedures of the peripheral, aortic and aortic side branch vasculature.

The LumiGuide 3D Hub enables the visualization of a connected endovascular catheter, when used in combination with a LumiGuide Wire and the LumiGuide Equipment.

The LumiGuide system consists of the following primary devices:

The LumiGuide Equipment R2.1 is a visualization device with Fiber Optic RealShape (FORS) technology. Its function is to create a real time 3D image of a LumiGuide Wire and, optionally, an endovascular catheter when combined with LumiGuide 3D Hub, and overlay this on real time or pre-recorded X-ray images and/or on a pre-operative CT volume. The LumiGuide Equipment R2.1 comprises software and hardware components (such as lasers, optical components, computer hardware, electrical and optical cabling), and a single-use, sterile, detachable component.

The LumiGuide Wire is a sterile, single use, angiographic guidewire with Fiber Optic RealShape (FORS) technology that is available in two configurations: LumiGuide Navigation Wire 3D Ultra and LumiGuide Navigation Wire 3D Plus. The primary function of the LumiGuide Wire is to direct a catheter in endovascular procedures of the peripheral, aortic and aortic side branch vasculature. The LumiGuide Wire can be visualized in 3D in real time by the LumiGuide Equipment R2.1 using FORS technology.

The LumiGuide 3D Hub is a sterile, single use accessory to the LumiGuide Equipment R2.1 that connects to the luer connector of endovascular catheters. When the LumiGuide Hub is connected to an endovascular catheter and is used in combination with a LumiGuide Wire, the LumiGuide Equipment R2.1 enables real time 3D visualization of the connected endovascular catheter.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

CoroFlow is indicated to provide hemodynamic information for use in the diagnosis of patients with cardiovascular diseases.

CoroFlow is intended for use in catheterization and related cardiovascular specialty laboratories to compute and display various physiological parameters based on the output from one or more measuring devices.

CoroFlow Cardiovascular system is used to calculate, display and store physiological parameters based on pressure and temperature measurements from Abbott Medical's PressureWire and Wi-box.

Calculated parameters include physiological indices to assess coronary lesion severity (FFR, Pd/Pa, RFR) and indices to assess coronary micro-circulation (IMR, CFR).

The system also provides indices based on the same raw pressure and temperature measurements (IMR_Corr, RRR, Absolute Flow/ Resistance, dP/dt, Tau).

CoroFlow is installed on a personal computer and receives measurement data wirelessly via the CoroHub Receiver. Information is displayed on the computer screen which can optionally be slaved to a monitor inside the coronary cathlab. Data can be stored on a local storage unit or transferred to a network location.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

The HemoSphere Stream™ Module when used with a Smart Pressure Controller (PC1Q) and VitaWave™ Plus Finger Cuff is indicated for use in adult patients to provide continuous, non-invasive arterial pressure waveform output to a compatible multi-parameter patient monitor. The device is designed for use in clinical environments requiring continuous assessment of blood pressure waveform morphology, without the need for an invasive catheter.

The HemoSphere Stream™ Module when used with the Smart Pressure Controller (PC1Q) and VitaWave™ Plus Finger Cuff is indicated for use in adult patients to provide continuous, non-invasive arterial pressure waveform output to a compatible multi-parameter patient monitor.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

EnSite™ X EP System

The EnSite™ X EP System is a suggested diagnostic tool in patients for whom electrophysiology studies have been indicated.

The EnSite™ X EP System provides information about the electrical activity of the heart and displays catheter location during conventional electrophysiological (EP) procedures.

EnSite™ X EP System Contact Force Software License

When used with the TactiSys™ Quartz Equipment, the EnSite™ X EP System Contact Force Module is intended to provide visualization of force information from compatible catheters.

EnSite™ X EP System Surface Electrode Kit

The EnSite™ X EP Surface Electrode Kit is indicated for use with the EnSite™ X EP System in accordance with the EnSite™ X EP System indications for use.

The EnSite™ X EP System is a catheter navigation and mapping system. A catheter navigation and mapping system is capable of displaying the 3-dimensional (3-D) position of conventional and Sensor Enabled™ (SE) electrophysiology catheters, as well as displaying cardiac electrical activity as waveform traces and as three-dimensional (3D) isopotential and isochronal maps of the cardiac chamber.

The contoured surfaces of the 3D maps are based on the anatomy of the patient's own cardiac chamber. The system creates a model by collecting and labeling the anatomic locations within the chamber. A surface is created by moving a selected catheter to locations within a cardiac structure. As the catheter moves, points are collected at and between all electrodes on the catheter. A surface is wrapped around the outermost points.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The EnSite X EP System is a suggested diagnostic tool in patients for whom electrophysiology studies have been indicated.

The EnSite X EP System provides information about the electrical activity of the heart and displays catheter location during conventional electrophysiological procedures.

The EnSite™ X EP System is a catheter navigation and mapping system. A catheter navigation and mapping system is capable of displaying the 3-dimensional (3-D) position of conventional and Sensor Enabled™ (SE) electrophysiology catheters, as well as displaying cardiac electrical activity as waveform traces and as three-dimensional (3D) isopotential and isochronal maps of the cardiac chamber.

The contoured surfaces of the 3D maps are based on the anatomy of the patient's own cardiac chamber. The system creates a model by collecting and labeling the anatomic locations within the chamber. A surface is created by moving a selected catheter to locations within a cardiac structure. As the catheter moves, points are collected at and between all electrodes on the catheter. A surface is wrapped around the outermost points.

N/A

Ask a specific question about this device

The intended use of the CARTO™ 3 System is catheter-based cardiac electrophysiological (EP) procedures. The CARTO™ 3 System provides information about the electrical activity of the heart and about catheter location during the procedure. The system can be used on patients who are eligible for a conventional electrophysiological procedure. The system has no special contraindications.

The CARTO™ 3 EP Navigation System V8.0, is a catheter-based atrial and ventricular mapping system designed to acquire and analyze navigation catheter's location and intracardiac ECG signals and use this information to display 3D anatomical and electroanatomical maps of the human heart. The location information needed to create the cardiac maps and the local electrograms are acquired using specialized mapping catheters and reference devices. The CARTO™ 3 System uses two distinct types of location technology – magnetic sensor technology and Advanced Catheter Location (ACL) technology.

The CARTO™ 3 System V8.1 consists of the following hardware components:

• Patient Interface Unit (PIU)
• Workstation with Graphic User Interface (GUI)
• Wide-Screen monitors, keyboard, and mouse
• Intracardiac In Port
• Intracardiac Out Port
• Power Supply
• Patches Connection Box and Cables (PU)
• Pedals
• Location Pad (LP)
• Signal Processing Unit (SPU)

All hardware components of the CARTO™ 3 system V8.1 are the same as those found in the predicate device.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the CARTO™ 3 EP Navigation System V8.1 does not contain the detailed information necessary to fully answer all aspects of your request regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them. The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (CARTO™ 3 EP Navigation System V8.0) and outlines the V&V testing performed at a high level.

Specifically, the document does not report specific quantitative acceptance criteria or reported device performance metrics in a readily extractable table format. It states that "All tests were successfully completed and met the acceptance criteria" for various testing phases, but the acceptance criteria themselves are not provided. Similarly, actual performance metrics (e.g., accuracy values, false positive rates, etc.) are not listed.

Regarding the "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria," the document describes verification and validation testing, but this is not presented as a single, comprehensive "study" with a specific design (like an MRMC study or a standalone performance study) and reported results in the same way one might describe a clinical trial. Instead, it's a summary of different types of engineering and software testing.

Given these limitations, I will extract and infer information where possible based on the provided text, and explicitly state when information is not available in the document.

Overview of Device Acceptance and Performance (Based on Available Information)

The acceptance of the CARTO™ 3 EP Navigation System V8.1 is broadly based on the successful completion of various verification and validation (V&V) tests, ensuring the device meets its design specifications and performs as intended, especially with new features and existing functionalities. The primary "proof" of acceptance is the statement that "All tests were successfully completed and met the acceptance criteria," even if those criteria are not quantitatively detailed.

Since quantitative acceptance criteria and reported numerical performance are not explicitly provided, a table with specific metrics cannot be generated. The document focuses on conceptual and functional "acceptance."

Detailed Breakdown of Available Information:

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

Not explicitly provided in the document in a quantitative, tabular format.

The document states:

• "All tests were successfully completed and met the acceptance criteria" for "Proof of Design."
• "All system features were found to perform according to specifications and met the tests acceptance criteria" for "Functional verification."
• "All tests were successfully completed and met the acceptance criteria" for "Unit Tests."
• "All testing performed were successfully completed and met the acceptance criteria" for "Retrospective Validation Tests."
• "All test protocol steps were successfully completed and expected results were achieved" for "Animal Testing."

While these statements confirm the device met its internal acceptance criteria, the specific numerical values of these criteria (e.g., "accuracy > X mm," "sensitivity > Y%") and the actual measured performance values are not disclosed in this 510(k) letter.

Inferred Performance Claims:

• The device maintains "identical magnetic location sensor and ACL location accuracy" as the predicate device (V8.0). However, the specific accuracy values are not stated for either version.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated.
  • For "Retrospective Validation Tests," it mentions "clinical recorded data from historic EP procedures." The number of procedures or specific data points is not provided.
  • For "Animal Testing," it indicates "animal testing was conducted," but the number of animals or specific test cases is not provided.
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of Origin: Not explicitly stated. The company Biosense Webster has facilities in Irvine, CA, USA, and Yokneam, Israel. The data could originate from clinical sites globally.
  • Retrospective or Prospective:
    • "Retrospective Validation Tests" explicitly used "clinical recorded data from historic EP procedures." This indicates retrospective data.
    • "Animal Testing" would be considered prospective in the context of controlled experimental animal studies.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

Not explicitly stated. The document does not describe the process of establishing ground truth for any of the V&V tests, nor the involvement or qualifications of experts for this purpose.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not explicitly stated. Given that expert involvement for ground truth is not detailed, an adjudication method is also not mentioned.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and its effect size

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was NOT done or reported. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through technical V&V testing and software feature improvements, not on comparative effectiveness with human readers. The CARTO™ 3 System is a navigation system, not an AI for image interpretation that typically undergoes MRMC studies.

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

Yes, aspects of standalone performance were evaluated, though not explicitly labeled as such.

• "Proof of Design" and "Unit Tests" would inherently involve evaluating the device's (or its software components') performance against design specifications in a standalone manner, without direct human-in-the-loop interaction beyond setup and execution of the tests.
• The statement "identical magnetic location sensor and ACL location accuracy" implies a standalone assessment of the system's core navigational accuracy.

However, specific quantitative metrics for this standalone performance (e.g., location accuracy in mm, precision, etc.) are not provided.

7. The type of ground truth used

Not explicitly stated for specific tests.

Inferred types of ground truth based on the nature of the device and tests:

• Engineering Specifications/Reference Standards: For "Proof of Design," "Functional verification," and "Unit Tests," the ground truth would likely be defined by internal engineering design specifications, simulated environments, and established reference measurements. For accuracy testing of location, highly precise physical measurement systems or phantoms would be used as ground truth.
• Retrospective Clinical Data: For "Retrospective Validation Tests," ground truth would presumably come from existing clinical records of "historic EP procedures," although how this ground truth was established within those records (e.g., confirmed diagnoses, procedural outcomes, expert review) is not detailed.
• Direct Observation/Measurement in Animal Models: For "Animal Testing," ground truth would be based on direct measurements and observations within the animal during the simulated procedures.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable/Not mentioned. The CARTO™ 3 System is described as a navigation system with improved software features (e.g., catheter support, legacy feature enhancements). It is not presented as an AI/ML model that undergoes a distinct "training set" development phase in the typical sense of deep learning models requiring large datasets for training. The changes appear to be more in line with traditional software development and feature integration.

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

Not applicable/Not mentioned (as it's not described as an AI/ML system with a training set).

Summary of Limitations of the Document for this Request:

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter serves its purpose of demonstrating substantial equivalence based on the provided V&V testing summary. However, it is not a detailed technical report or clinical study publication that would typically include the specific quantitative acceptance criteria, full performance metrics, detailed sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth methodologies you are requesting for a comprehensive analysis of a device's proven performance. The document implies successful adherence to internal specifications without detailing those specifications or the resultant performance values.

Ask a specific question about this device

The EnSite X EP System is a suggested diagnostic tool in patients for whom electrophysiology studies have been indicated.

The EnSite X EP System provides information about the electrical activity of the heart and displays catheter location during conventional electrophysiological procedures.

The EnSite™ X EP System is a catheter navigation and mapping system. A catheter navigation and mapping system is capable of displaying the 3-dimensional (3-D) position of conventional and Sensor Enabled™ (SE) electrophysiology catheters, as well as displaying cardiac electrical activity as waveform traces and as three-dimensional (3D) isopotential and isochronal maps of the cardiac chamber.

The contoured surfaces of the 3D maps are based on the anatomy of the patient's own cardiac chamber. The system creates a model by collecting and labeling the anatomic locations within the chamber. A surface is created by moving a selected catheter to locations within a cardiac structure. As the catheter moves, points are collected at and between all electrodes on the catheter. A surface is wrapped around the outermost points.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the EnSite™ X EP System (K251234) details the device's regulatory pathway and general testing conducted. However, it does not contain the specific information required to populate a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance. It focuses on the regulatory aspects, substantial equivalence to a predicate device, and the general types of testing performed (e.g., software verification, amplifier design verification, system design validation) to demonstrate that the device meets user requirements and its intended use.

The document states: "Design verification activities were performed and met their respective acceptance criteria to ensure that the devices in scope of this submission are substantially equivalent to the predicate device." However, the specific acceptance criteria (e.g., a numerical threshold for accuracy or precision) and the reported device performance values against those criteria are not presented in this public clearance letter.

Similarly, the letter does not provide details regarding:

• Sample sizes used for test sets (beyond stating "design verification" and "system design validation" were performed).
• Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective).
• Number of experts, their qualifications, or adjudication methods for establishing ground truth for any test set.
• Whether a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, or any effect size for human readers.
• Whether standalone (algorithm-only) performance was assessed.
• The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data).
• The sample size for the training set.
• How ground truth for the training set was established.

This type of detailed performance data is typically found within the confidential 510(k) submission itself, not routinely published in the public clearance letter.

Therefore,Based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the EnSite™ X EP System, the following information can be extracted regarding the device's acceptance criteria and the study that proves it meets those criteria:

Key Takeaway: The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter asserts that acceptance criteria were met through various design verification and validation activities, demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not disclose the specific numerical acceptance criteria or the quantitative results of the device's performance against those criteria. The details below are based on what is stated or can be inferred from the document.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As per the provided document, specific numerical acceptance criteria and reported device performance data are not explicitly stated or detailed. The document generally states:

"Design verification activities were performed and met their respective acceptance criteria to ensure that the devices in scope of this submission are substantially equivalent to the predicate device."

And

"System Design Validation to confirm the system could meet user requirements and its intended use after modifications"

Without specific numerical cut-offs or performance metrics (e.g., accuracy, precision, error rates), a table cannot be populated as requested. The clearance indicates that internal testing demonstrated the device met pre-defined acceptance criteria, but those criteria and the actual performance results are not publicly available in this document.

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

• Sample Size Used for Test Set: Not specified in the provided document. The document mentions "Design verification activities" and "System Design Validation" but does not give the number of cases, patients, or data points used for these tests.
• Data Provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not specified in the provided document.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth and Qualifications

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.
  • (It's common for electrophysiology systems that ground truth would be established by electrophysiologists, but this document does not confirm that.)

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not specified. (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none)

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

• MRMC Study: No indication that an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was performed or required for this 510(k) clearance. The focus of this submission is on substantial equivalence to a predicate device, which often relies on non-clinical testing for software updates or minor changes, rather than clinical efficacy studies comparing human readers with and without AI assistance.
• Effect Size of Human Readers Improvement with AI vs. Without AI Assistance: Not applicable/Not provided, as an MRMC study is not mentioned.

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

• Standalone Performance: The document describes "Software Verification at unit, software and system level" and "Amplifier Design Verification," which are types of standalone-like algorithmic or component-level testing. However, the exact metrics and results for pure "algorithm-only" performance (e.g., for automated mapping or analysis features if present) are not detailed. The system is described as a "diagnostic tool" that "provides information" and "displays catheter location," implying human interaction is integral.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: Not explicitly stated. Given the nature of an EP system, ground truth would likely involve a combination of:
  • Validated phantom models: For physical accuracy of catheter tracking and mapping.
  • Clinical expert consensus: For validating the interpretation of electrical activity and the accuracy of generated 3D maps or anatomical models.
  • Reference measurements: From other validated systems or direct measurements during testing.
  • The document implies ground truth was used for "Design verification" and "System Design Validation," which "confirm the system could meet user requirements."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Training Set Sample Size: Not applicable/Not specified. This 510(k) is for a software update (v5.0) to an existing system (EnSite™ X EP System, predicate K242016). The document describes changes related to compatibility with new catheters and ultrasound systems, rather than the development of entirely new AI/ML algorithms requiring a "training set" in the conventional sense of deep learning. While software is involved, the primary testing discussed is verification and validation, not model training.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set Establishment: Not applicable/Not specified, as the document does not indicate the use of a "training set" in the context of machine learning model development. The 'ground truth' concept would apply more to the test and validation steps, as discussed in point 7.

Ask a specific question about this device

• HemoSphere Advanced Monitor with HemoSphere Swan-Ganz Module: The HemoSphere advanced monitor when used with the HemoSphere Swan-Ganz module and Edwards Swan-Ganz catheters is indicated for use in adult and pediatric critical care patients requiring monitoring of cardiac output (continuous [CO] and intermittent [iCO]) and derived hemodynamic parameters in a hospital environment. Pulmonary artery blood temperature monitoring is used to compute continuous and intermittent CO with thermodilution technologies. It may also be used for monitoring hemodynamic parameters in conjunction with a perioperative goal directed therapy protocol in a hospital environment. Refer to the Edwards Swan-Ganz catheter and Swan-Ganz Jr catheter indications for use statements for information on target patient population specific to the catheter being used. Refer to the Intended Use statement for a complete list of measured and derived parameters available for each patient population.

• HemoSphere Advanced Monitor with HemoSphere Oximetry Cable: The HemoSphere Advanced Monitor when used with the HemoSphere Oximetry Cable and Edwards oximetry catheters is indicated for use in adult and pediatric critical care patients requiring monitoring of venous oxygen saturation (SvO2 and ScvO2) and derived hemodynamic parameters in a hospital environment. Refer to the Edwards oximetry catheter indications for use statement for information on target patient population specific to the catheter being used. Refer to the Intended Use statement for a complete list of measured and derived parameters available for each patient population.

• HemoSphere Advanced Monitor with HemoSphere Pressure Cable: The HemoSphere advanced monitor when used with the HemoSphere pressure cable is indicated for use in adult and pediatric critical care patients in which the balance between cardiac function, fluid status, vascular resistance and pressure needs continuous assessment. It may be used for monitoring of hemodynamic parameters in conjunction with a perioperative goal directed therapy protocol in a hospital environment. Refer to the Edwards FloTrac sensor, FloTrac Jr sensor, Acumen IQ sensor, and TruWave disposable pressure transducer indications for use statements for information on target patient populations specific to the sensor/transducer being used. The Edwards Acumen Hypotension Prediction Index software feature provides the clinician with physiological insight into a patient's likelihood of future hypotensive events and the associated hemodynamics. The Acumen HPI feature is intended for use in surgical or non-surgical patients receiving advanced hemodynamic monitoring. The Acumen HPI feature is considered to be additional quantitative information regarding the patient's physiological condition for reference only and no therapeutic decisions should be made based solely on the Acumen Hypotension Prediction Index (HPI) parameter. Refer to the Intended Use statement for a complete list of measured and derived parameters available for each patient population.

• HemoSphere Advanced Monitor with Acumen Assisted Fluid Management Feature and Acumen IQ Sensor: The Acumen Assisted Fluid Management (AFM) software feature provides the clinician with physiological insight into a patient's estimated response to fluid therapy and the associated hemodynamics. The Acumen AFM software feature is intended for use in surgical patients >=18 years of age, that require advanced hemodynamic monitoring. The Acumen AFM software feature offers suggestions regarding the patient's physiological condition and estimated response to fluid therapy. Acumen AFM fluid administration suggestions are offered to the clinician; the decision to administer a fluid bolus is made by the clinician, based upon review of the patient's hemodynamics. No therapeutic decisions should be made based solely on the Assisted Fluid Management suggestions. The Acumen Assisted Fluid Management software feature may be used with the Acumen AFM Cable and Acumen IQ fluid meter.

• HemoSphere Advanced Monitor with HemoSphere Technology Module and ForeSight Oximeter Cable: The non-invasive ForeSight oximeter cable is intended for use as an adjunct monitor of absolute regional hemoglobin oxygen saturation of blood under the sensors in individuals at risk for reduced-flow or no flow ischemic states. The ForeSight Oximeter Cable is also intended to monitor relative changes of total hemoglobin of blood under the sensors. The ForeSight Oximeter Cable is intended to allow for the display of StO2 and relative change in total hemoglobin on the HemoSphere advanced monitor.

  • When used with large sensors, the ForeSight Oximeter Cable is indicated for use on adults and transitional adolescents >=40 kg.
  • When used with medium sensors, the ForeSight Oximeter Cable is indicated for use on pediatric subjects >=3 kg.
  • When used with small sensors, the ForeSight Oximeter Cable is indicated for cerebral use on pediatric subjects <8 kg and non-cerebral use on pediatric subjects <5kg.

  Refer to the Intended Use statement for a complete list of measured and derived parameters available for each patient population.

• HemoSphere Advanced Monitor with HemoSphere ClearSight Module: The HemoSphere advanced monitor when used with the HemoSphere ClearSight module, pressure controller or Smart Pressure Controller and a compatible Edwards finger cuff are indicated for patients over 18 years of age in which the balance between cardiac function, fluid status and vascular resistance needs continuous assessment. It may be used for monitoring hemodynamic parameters in conjunction with a perioperative goal directed therapy protocol in a hospital environment. In addition, the noninvasive system is indicated for use in patients with comorbidities for which hemodynamic optimization is desired and invasive measurements are difficult. The HemoSphere advanced monitor and compatible Edwards finger cuffs noninvasively measures blood pressure and associated hemodynamic parameters. The Edwards Lifesciences Acumen Hypotension Prediction Index feature provides the clinician with physiological insight into a patient's likelihood of future hypotensive events and the associated hemodynamics. The Acumen HPI feature is intended for use in surgical or non-surgical patients receiving advanced hemodynamic monitoring. The Acumen HPI feature is considered to be additional quantitative information regarding the patient's physiological condition for reference only and no therapeutic decisions should be made based solely on the Hypotension Prediction Index (HPI) parameter.

• Indication for Acumen IQ Plus and VitaWave Plus finger cuffs: The Acumen IQ Plus and VitaWave Plus finger cuff adult indicated for patients over 18 years of age to continuously blood pressure and associated hemodynamic parameters when used with a compatible Edwards monitoring platform.

• Smart Pressure Controller: The Smart Pressure Controller is intended for use with an Edwards compatible noninvasive monitoring system - composed of compatible monitor, pressure source (pump), compatible Edwards finger cuff(s) and pressure controller - for continuous noninvasive measurement of blood pressure and associated hemodynamic parameters. Refer to the operator's manual of the compatible Edwards monitor being used for specific information on the intended use environment and patient population.

• Intended Use: The HemoSphere advanced monitoring platform is intended to be used by qualified personnel or trained clinicians in a critical care environment in a hospital setting. The Viewfinder remote mobile application can be used for supplemental near real-time remote display of monitored hemodynamic parameter data as well as faults, alerts and notifications generated by the HemoSphere advanced monitoring platform. The HemoSphere advanced monitoring platform is intended for use with compatible Edwards Swan-Ganz and oximetry catheters, Swan-Ganz Jr catheters, FloTrac sensors, FloTrac Jr sensors, Acumen IQ sensors, TruWave disposable pressure transducers, ForeSight/ForeSight Jr sensors, Acumen IQ fluid meter, and ClearSight/ClearSight Jr/Acumen IQ/Acumen IQ Plus/VitaWave/VitaWave Plus finger cuffs

The HemoSphere Advanced Monitor was designed to simplify the customer experience by providing one platform with modular solutions for all hemodynamic monitoring needs. The user can choose from available optional sub-system modules or use multiple sub-system modules at the same time. This modular approach provides the customer with the choice of purchasing and/or using specific monitoring applications based on their needs. Users are not required to have all of the modules installed at the same time for the platform to function.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the Edwards Lifesciences HemoSphere Advanced Monitor (HEM1) and associated components outlines the device's indications for use and the testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, it does not contain the detailed acceptance criteria or the specific study results (performance data) in the format typically required to answer your request fully, especially for acceptance criteria and performance of an AI/algorithm-based feature like the Hypotension Prediction Index (HPI) or Assisted Fluid Management (AFM).

The document states:

• "Completion of all verification and validation activities demonstrated that the subject devices meet their predetermined design and performance specifications."
• "Measured and derived parameters were tested using a bench simulation. Additionally, system integration and mechanical testing was successfully conducted to verify the safety and effectiveness of the device. All tests passed."
• "Software verification testing was conducted, and documentation was provided per FDA's Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff, "Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices". All tests passed."

This indicates that internal performance specifications were met, but the specific metrics, thresholds, and study designs for achieving those specifications are not detailed in this public summary.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table with specific numerical performance data against acceptance criteria for the HPI or AFM features, nor can I provide details on sample size, expert ground truth establishment, or MRMC studies, as this information is not present in the provided text.

The text primarily focuses on:

• Substantial equivalence to predicate devices.
• Indications for Use for various HemoSphere configurations and modules.
• Description of software and hardware modifications (e.g., integration of HPI algorithm, new finger cuffs).
• General categories of testing performed (Usability, System Verification, Electrical Safety/EMC, Software Verification) with a blanket statement that "All tests passed."

Based on the provided document, here's what can and cannot be stated:

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

Cannot be provided with specific numerical data or thresholds from the given text. The document only states that "all verification and validation activities demonstrated that the subject devices meet their predetermined design and performance specifications." No specific acceptance criteria values (e.g., "Accuracy > X%", "Sensitivity > Y%", "Mean Absolute Error < Z") or reported performance values are publicly disclosed in this summary for any parameter, including HPI or AFM. For measured and derived parameters (like CO, MAP, etc.), it states they were tested using bench simulation, and "All tests passed," implying they met internal accuracy specifications for physical measurements, but these are not detailed.

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

Cannot be provided from the given text. The document mentions "bench simulation" for measured and derived parameters, but does not provide sample sizes for these, or the type/provenance of data for testing the HPI or AFM algorithms.

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)

Cannot be provided from the given text. The document doesn't describe the process of establishing ground truth for the algorithms, nor does it mention the number or qualifications of experts involved in such a process.

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

Cannot be provided from the given text. There is no mention of adjudication methods for any test sets.

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

Cannot be provided from the given text. The document does not describe any MRMC studies or human-in-the-loop performance evaluation regarding the HPI or AFM features. The HPI and AFM features are described as providing "physiological insight" and "suggestions," not as tools requiring reader interpretation in a comparative effectiveness study as typically seen with imaging AI.

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

Likely yes, based on the nature of the algorithms, but no specific performance metrics are provided. The HPI and AFM features are stated to provide "quantitative information" and "suggestions." The text indicates "System Verification (Non-Clinical Performance)" and "Software Verification" were performed, suggesting standalone evaluation against internal specifications, but no detailed results are provided. The HPI algorithm itself was "previously cleared in K230057," implying its standalone performance would have been evaluated during that prior clearance, but those details are not in this document.

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

Cannot be definitively stated from the given text. For the HPI feature, which predicts future hypotensive events, ground truth would typically involve actual patient outcomes (e.g., observed hypotensive events). For AFM, which suggests response to fluid therapy, ground truth might involve observed physiological responses to fluid boluses. However, the document does not specify how these ground truths were established for the purpose of testing the algorithms.

8. The sample size for the training set

Cannot be provided from the given text. The document does not mention details about the training data for the algorithms.

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

Cannot be provided from the given text. The document does not mention details about the training data or its ground truth establishment.

Summary of Device Features Mentioned in Relation to Performance/Testing (General):

• HemoSphere Advanced Monitor and various modules/accessories: The document primarily describes this as a monitoring platform for various hemodynamic parameters (CO, SvO2, MAP, etc.). Performance for these measured and derived parameters was tested via "bench simulation," and "All tests passed," implying they met internal benchmarks for accuracy and reliability.
• Acumen Hypotension Prediction Index (HPI) software feature: This feature provides "physiological insight into a patient's likelihood of future hypotensive events." It was integrated from a previously cleared device (K230057). The document states "There are no changes to the Acumen HPI algorithm from what was cleared in K230057." This implies that the acceptance criteria and supporting studies for the HPI algorithm itself would be found in the K230057 clearance documentation, not typically resubmitted in detail for integration into another platform unless the integration process significantly altered its functionality or intended use.
• Acumen Assisted Fluid Management (AFM) software feature: This feature provides "physiological insight into a patient's estimated response to fluid therapy" and "suggestions." It also mentions "Acumen AFM fluid administration suggestions are offered to the clinician; the decision to administer a fluid bolus is made by the clinician, based upon review of the patient's hemodynamics. No therapeutic decisions should be made based solely on the Assisted Fluid Management suggestions." This language suggests it's a supportive, advisory tool, rather than a diagnostic one requiring strict accuracy metrics in the same way. No performance specifics for AFM are given.
• Usability Study: Conducted to ensure primary operating functions and critical tasks can be performed without patient or user harm. Determined that "intended users can perform primary operating functions and critical tasks of the system without any usability issues that may lead to patient or user harm." This is an acceptance criterion for human factors, but not for algorithmic performance.
• Electrical Safety and EMC, Software Verification: All tests passed. These are general product safety and quality criteria, not specific to the performance of the predictive algorithms.

To obtain the detailed performance data, acceptance criteria, sample sizes, and ground truth information for the HPI or AFM algorithms, one would typically need to refer to the original 510(k) submission for the HPI algorithm (K230057) and potentially separate documentation for the AFM feature, which are not included in this general clearance letter for the HemoSphere platform update.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Globe PF System is indicated for catheter-based cardiac anatomical and electrophysiological mapping and stimulation of cardiac tissue.

The Globe Pulsed Field System (Globe PF System) comprises the following components and accessories to support anatomical and electrophysiological mapping, and pacing stimulation of cardiac tissue:

• Globe Controller: Used for the acquisition and processing of signals for cardiac anatomical and electrophysiological mapping, generation of mapping energy and stimulation pulses.

• Globe Workstation: A PC workstation configured with the Globe Software, which the clinician uses to assess contact between the mapping catheter electrodes and the atrial wall, map the atrial electrical activity, and apply stimulation pulses for diagnostic purposes.

• Globe Positioning System (GPS™) Electrodes and GPS Cable: Surface electrodes and cables for localization of the mapping catheter.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the Globe® Pulsed Field System do not contain the detailed information required to answer all parts of your request. This document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on intended use, indications for use, and a high-level comparison of technological characteristics.

Specifically, the document does not include:

• Specific acceptance criteria values (e.g., minimum sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy targets).
• The reported device performance against such criteria.
• Detailed information about the study design for clinical or performance evaluation (e.g., test set sample size, provenance, expert qualifications, ground truth establishment methods, or whether MRMC studies were conducted).
• Training set details.

Therefore, I can only provide information directly extractable from the given text.

Here's what can be extracted and what is not available:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Sample Size: NOT PROVIDED. The document mentions "performance testing" but does not specify the sample size for any clinical or test data used to evaluate the device.
• Data Provenance: NOT PROVIDED. No information is given regarding the country of origin of data or whether it was retrospective or prospective.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

• NOT PROVIDED. The document does not detail any expert involvement for ground truth establishment in performance testing.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• NOT PROVIDED. No information is available regarding any adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for establishing ground truth or evaluating test results.

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 PROVIDED. The document does not mention any MRMC comparative effectiveness study or any evaluation of human reader improvement with AI assistance. The device description focuses on its mapping and stimulation capabilities, not AI-assisted interpretation.

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

• NOT PROVIDED. While software verification and validation were performed, the document does not specify whether "standalone" performance (without human-in-the-loop) was a distinct part of the performance evaluation, or what specific algorithms were evaluated in such a manner. The device is a "Programmable diagnostic computer" that aids clinicians.

7. The type of ground truth used

• NOT PROVIDED. The general "performance testing" and "software verification and validation" are mentioned, but the specific type of ground truth (e.g., expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data) used for evaluation is not described. For the CONTACT and FLOW maps, it mentions they are "based on the same principles of operation as the reference device (Swan-Ganz catheter, K160084)" and that "the scientific methods used to evaluate the safety and effectiveness... are adequate." This suggests a comparison to established methods or a reference standard, but not explicit "ground truth" as you might see for diagnostic classifications.

8. The sample size for the training set

• NOT PROVIDED. The document does not mention a "training set" or any details about it. This submission is for a medical device that includes software, but it doesn't specify if it employs machine learning or requires a distinct "training set" in the common understanding of AI/ML development.

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

• NOT PROVIDED. As no training set is mentioned, naturally, no information on its ground truth establishment is available.

Summary of Device and Study Information (based on available text):

• Device Name: Globe® Pulsed Field System
• Intended Use/Indications for Use: Catheter-based cardiac anatomical and electrophysiological mapping and stimulation of cardiac tissue.
• Study Type: Performance testing (bench, biocompatibility, usability, electrical safety, EMC, software V&V, cybersecurity, packaging validation) to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.
• Predicate Device: Affera Integrated Mapping System; Impedance Localization Patch Kit (K241828)
• Reference Device: Swan-Ganz Catheter (K160084) (for CONTACT and FLOW maps)
• Key Finding for Equivalence: "The Globe PF System meets the performance criteria for its intended use and does not raise new questions on safety or effectiveness compared to the predicate device."

The FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary are high-level documents focused on regulatory substantial equivalence. They typically do not delve into the granular details of performance study designs, such as specific sample sizes, expert qualifications, or ground truth methodologies, to the extent that you are asking. Such detailed information would typically be found in the full 510(k) submission itself, which is not publicly released in its entirety.

Ask a specific question about this device