Search Results

The ACON Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor is a fully automatic blood pressure monitor that measures systolic blood pressure (SYS), diastolic blood pressure (DIA) and pulse rate (P). It is intended to be sold over-the-counter for home use.

The ACON Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor (BPM) Kit consists of an oscillometer assembly that measures blood pressure oscillometrically. This BPM comes with a standard & a large arm cuff. The BPM is powered by either four AA batteries or an optional AC adapter. Before measuring, the user fits the end of the cuff through a D-ring and secures it by the Velcro strap around the upper arm. The position of the arm cuff should be leveled with user's heart. Once fastened, the user turns on the BPM to initiate a self-checking program. The cuff is automatically inflated by the pump only when the BPM passes the self-check and the "Err" sign is not shown on the monitor. While inflating, the monitor displays upward numbers and arrows to signify that the cuff is slowly inflating. After reaching the appropriate level, the pumping action stops and the monitor displays downward numbers and arrows to signify that the cuff is slowly deflating. During this time, a heart-shaped icon also appears on the right hand side of the monitor together with the beeping sounds, indicating the heart rate is also being measured. Once the monitoring has completed, the LCD screen displays the following measurements from top to bottom: systolic blood pressure (SYS), diastolic blood pressure (DIA), and pulse rate (P) to the user.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the ACON™ Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor Kit's acceptance criteria and study:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implied by the Accuracy specifications listed under "Technological Characteristics," and the study aims to show equivalence to a predicate device and a mercury sphygmomanometer.

Note: While the "Technological Characteristics" section defines the desired accuracy, the "Discussion of Clinical Tests Performed" section discusses a "consumer study" indicating "comparable" readings, but does not provide the specific numerical mean deviation and standard deviation values from this study that would directly demonstrate compliance with the ± 3 mmHg and ± 5% pulse accuracy acceptance criteria. The summary only states that the study results indicate comparable readings.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the number of participants in the "consumer studies." It only states "Consumer studies were conducted..." and mentions "the participated lay persons."
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin. It refers to the ACON Laboratories, Inc. as being in San Diego, California, USA, but does not confirm if the study participants were exclusively from the US. The study is described as prospective, as it involved "consumer studies" where "lay persons were able to obtain comparable blood pressure and pulse rate readings."

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

The document does not mention the use of experts to establish ground truth for the consumer study. Instead, it compares the ACON device's readings against:

• A legally marketed OMRON automatic Blood Pressure Monitor, Model #HEM-711AC (predicate device).
• A Mercury Sphygmomanometer.

The Mercury Sphygmomanometer would serve as the clinical reference standard, traditionally considered the "gold standard" for blood pressure measurement, often operated by trained personnel, though the document does not elaborate on who operated it in this specific consumer study.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe an adjudication method for the test set. The study directly compares readings from the ACON device to the OMRON device and a mercury sphygmomanometer. It focuses on the "mean deviation and standard deviation" between these measurements, implying a direct comparison rather than an adjudication process of ambiguous results.

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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly described. The study involved "non-professional, inexperienced lay persons" using the device, but it wasn't a study to assess how human readers (interpreters of diagnostic images, for example) improve with AI assistance. This device is a measurement tool, not an interpretive AI.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

Yes, the primary clinical validation described is a standalone performance study. The "consumer studies" evaluated the ACON Automatic Blood Pressure Monitor Kit's ability to measure blood pressure and pulse rate independently, and then compared these measurements to established reference methods (OMRON monitor and mercury sphygmomanometer). The "human-in-the-loop" aspect here refers to the user operating the device for measurement, not interpreting an AI's output.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the clinical study was established by:

• Readings from a legally marketed OMRON automatic Blood Pressure Monitor, Model #HEM-711AC (K930798), which itself has been cleared as substantially equivalent.
• Readings from a Mercury Sphygmomanometer, which is generally considered the clinical "gold standard" for blood pressure measurement.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not specify a separate training set or its sample size. This type of device (an oscillometric blood pressure monitor) typically relies on established algorithms and physical principles for measurement rather than requiring a machine learning "training set" in the common sense for AI algorithms. The "Laboratory Testing" section implies internal verification and calibration, which might align with traditional engineering validation, but not an AI training process.

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

Since there is no mention of a traditional machine learning "training set" for an AI algorithm, there's no information on how a ground truth for such a set was established. The device operates based on oscillometric principles, and its internal algorithms would have been developed and validated through engineering design and testing, likely against established pressure and pulse rate references during development and internal calibration.

Ask a specific question about this device