Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(114 days)
The BreatheX Nasal Interface System is intended for use as accessory device to CPAP machines in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).
The BreatheX Nasal Interface System is for use on adult spontaneously breathing (non-ventilator dependant) patients at home or in the sleep clinic.
The BreatheX Nasal Interface System is an accessory intended for use with devices that deliver Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and bi-level positive airway pressure in treating adult patients.
The BreatheX Nasal Interface System has been designed for use as an accessory with commonly marketed CPAP units. The device consists of a plastic manifold with integral exhaust port, nasal mask cushion, a set of nasal pillows, adjustable headgear straps, and an interface tube with a 22mm fitting.
The Nasal Interface System allows a patient to use either the nasal pillows or nasal mask cushion interchangeably. The lightweight construction of the device is designed to maximize patient comfort.
The device is labeled for single patient use.
The Hoffman Laboratories BreatheX™ Nasal Interface System is a CPAP device accessory. The provided document does not detail specific quantitative acceptance criteria or a formal study proving the device met such criteria in the way one might expect for a diagnostic or therapeutic medical device involving clinical outcomes.
Instead, the submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to already legally marketed predicate devices through non-clinical testing and comparison of technological characteristics.
Here's an breakdown of the information requested, based on the provided text:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
| Acceptance Criteria Category | Specific Criteria (Implicitly based on predicate devices and standards) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Performance | Compliance with standards for temperature, humidity, shock, vibration, moisture ingress. | "The BreatheX Nasal Interface System passed all of the tests." |
| Static Performance | Comparable dead space to predicate devices. | "The device met specified requirements and was comparable to the applicable specifications of the predicate devices." |
| Dynamic Performance | Comparable pressure-flow characteristics to predicate devices. | "The device met specified requirements and was comparable to the applicable specifications of the predicate devices." |
| Sound Output Level | Comparable sound output level to predicate devices. | "The device met specified requirements and was comparable to the applicable specifications of the predicate devices." |
| Biocompatibility | Materials comply with biocompatibility requirements for intended use. | "The materials utilized in the device comply with biocompatibility requirements appropriate for the intended use." |
| Risk & Hazard Analysis | Residual risks acceptable for intended use. | "Risk and Hazard analyses were performed, and the results of the analyses demonstrated that the residual risks were acceptable for the intended use." |
| Technological Equivalence | Similar technological characteristics as predicate devices (e.g., rigid plastic manifold, soft silicone rubber seal, head straps, integral exhaust port). | "The BreatheX Nasal Interface device utilizes similar technological characteristics as the predicate devices... Like the predicate devices, the manifold... has an integral exhaust port..." |
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance
- Sample Size: Not specified quantitatively. The "tests" mentioned are likely engineering and bench tests, not involving human subjects. For example, "dead space" or "pressure-flow characteristics" would be measured on a single or a small number of device units.
- Data Provenance: The tests were conducted internally by Hoffman Laboratories, LLC. "Laboratory and standards compliance tests" are mentioned, suggesting controlled lab environments. No country of origin for data is stated beyond the company's location in Chatsworth, CA, USA. The data is retrospective in the sense that it was collected prior to the 510(k) submission.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
- This information is not applicable and not provided. The "ground truth" for this type of device (a CPAP accessory) in a 510(k) submission is typically based on engineering specifications, industry standards, and comparison to predicate devices, rather than expert interpretation of clinical data.
4. Adjudication method for the test set
- Not applicable and not provided. As mentioned above, this is not a study requiring adjudication of expert opinions.
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
- No MRMC study was conducted. This device is not an AI-powered diagnostic or therapeutic tool that would involve human readers or AI assistance.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- No standalone algorithm performance study was done. This device does not involve an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)
- The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests was based on engineering specifications, industry standards (e.g., for environmental testing), and predefined performance characteristics that were considered acceptable or comparable to the predicate devices. For example, the "specified requirements" for dead space and pressure-flow characteristics served as the ground truth against which the device's performance was measured. Biocompatibility requirements per relevant standards also acted as ground truth.
8. The sample size for the training set
- Not applicable. This device is not an AI or machine learning system, so there is no training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- Not applicable, as there is no training set.
Ask a specific question about this device
(177 days)
The Tiara Medical Systems SNAPP is intended to be used with continuous positive airway pressure devices (CPAP), operating at or above 3 cmH20 for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. The SNAPP is intended for single patient use and can be used in the home or in a hospital/institutional environment. The SNAPP is to be used on adult patients (>30Kg) for whom continuous positive airway pressure has been prescribed.
The Tiara Medical Systems SNAPP Soft Nasal Accessory for Positive Pressure is a nasal cannula with inserts intended to be used with positive anway pressure devices such as CPAP (Continuous Possure). It provides a seal such that positive pressure from a positive pressure source is directed into the patient's nose. It is held in place with an adjustable headgear. It may be cleaned with mild soap and water. The cleaning process does not require disassembly.
The device consists of latex-free silicone air delivery tubes connecting a polycarbonate Wye adapter / swivel with a latex-free silicone soft, resilient nasal inserts which form a seal with the nostrils.
The device connects to a conventional air delivery hose between itself and the positive airway pressure source via a standard 22 mm polycarbonate fitting on the combination Wye adapter / swivel. The built in vent slots are molded into the underside of the nasal insert body to direct air away from the patient's face and chest, and eliminate the need for a separate exhalation device. The vent slots may be visually checked for obstruction prior to use. The SNAPP Headgear is available in three sizes to fit a broad range of facial structures, and attaches to the SNAPP via slots molded into the nasal insert body.
The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Tiara Medical Systems SNAPP Soft Nasal Accessory for Positive Pressure, a nasal cannula for use with CPAP devices. It details the device's description, intended use, and claims of substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, it does not contain the specific information requested regarding acceptance criteria or a detailed study proving the device meets said criteria.
The document states that "bench testing demonstrated there was no difference in the performance, safety, or effectiveness between the Tiara Medical Systems SNAPP Soft Nasal Accessory for Positive Pressure and the specified predicate devices." This is a general statement of equivalence, not a report of a specific study against predefined acceptance criteria.
Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table or detailed answers to questions 1-9 as the necessary information is not present in the provided text. The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence based on overall comparison to predicate devices rather than reporting on a study with explicit acceptance criteria for the new device.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1