Search Filters

Search Results

Found 3 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K230298
    Device Name
    Celsi Monitor
    Date Cleared
    2023-08-16

    (195 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    880.2910
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K061610

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    Celsi Monitor is intended for use in hospitals under a clinician's supervision or at their direction to assist nurses in continuous temperature monitoring of neonates. The device abdominal skin temperature through direct contact.

    Device Description

    Celsi Monitor is a non-invasive continuous temperature monitor. Celsi Monitor achieves its intended purpose by measuring temperature at the surface of a neonate's abdomen by sensing changes in electrical resistance of a thermistor that is in thermal contact with the skin at the measured point. Celsi Monitor is provided with the Celsi Belt. The Celsi Monitor is powered by two rechargeable lithium-ion batteries. Both the Celsi Belt and Celsi Probe are reusable. The device displays measured patient body temperature for up to 12 hours and alarms when the temperature falls outside normothermic levels (37.5 °C). The device is a skin contacting surface device with duration of contact

    AI/ML Overview

    This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA for the "Celsi Monitor" device. It outlines the device's characteristics, intended use, and a comparison to a predicate device, along with summaries of testing performed.

    Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance:

    The document doesn't explicitly list "acceptance criteria" in a table form with specific performance thresholds for the Celsi Monitor. Instead, it describes general compliance with standards and comparable performance to a predicate device. Its primary acceptance criterion for the 510(k) clearance is demonstrating substantial equivalence to an existing legally marketed device (the predicate device). This substantial equivalence is shown through similar intended uses, technological characteristics, and a demonstration that any differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

    The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to the non-clinical and clinical testing performed to support the claim of substantial equivalence.

    Here's an attempt to structure the information based on the prompt's request for acceptance criteria and device performance, drawing from the provided text:

    Table of Performance and (Implied) Acceptance Criteria:

    Performance Metric/AspectImplied Acceptance Criteria (Demonstrated Equivalence)Reported Device Performance (Summary of Testing from Document)
    Temperature Measurement AccuracyComparable accuracy to the reference (predicate) device (Philips Intellivue MP30)"Results from both [short and long duration] studies demonstrated comparable temperature measurement accuracy between the subject and predicate devices." (Note: The predicate for this comparison is the Philips Intellivue MP30, K061610, not the Cadi SmartSense, K083185, which is the primary predicate for the 510(k) itself. This indicates the Philips device was used as a reference for accuracy.)
    Effects on Subject's SkinSafe for contact with skin; no adverse effects on skin over duration of use.Evaluated in short (3 hour) and long (12 hour) clinical studies. Implied satisfactory results as it concluded differences do not raise new safety questions.
    BiocompatibilityNo cytotoxicity, sensitization, or irritation. Compliance with ISO 10993-5:2009, ISO 10993-10:2010, and ISO 10993-23:2010:2021."The subject device was evaluated for cytotoxicity, sensitization, and irritation in compliance to ISO 10993-5:2009, ISO 10993-10:2010, and ISO 10993-23:2010:2021." (Implied successful compliance for substantial equivalence).
    Software Verification & ValidationCompliance with IEC 62304."The software development and testing were executed with consideration to IEC 62304."
    CybersecurityEvaluation per AAMI TIR57."Cybersecurity was evaluated per AAMI TIR57."
    Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)Compliance with IEC 60601-1:2012, IEC 60601-1-2:2014, etc."The subject device was tested in compliance with IEC 60601-1:2012, IEC 60601-1-2:2014, IEC 60601-1-6:2013, IEC 60601-1-8:2012, ISO 80601-2-56:2017, and IEC 62133:2012." (Implied successful compliance).
    Electrical SafetyCompliance with IEC 60601-1:2012, etc."The subject device was tested in compliance with IEC 60601-1:2012, IEC 60601-1-2:2014, IEC 60601-1-6:2013, IEC 60601-1-8:2012, ISO 80601-2-56:2017, and IEC 62133:2012." (Implied successful compliance).
    Lifetime AnalysisMeets performance after simulated use cycles."Lifetime analysis testing after 100 simulated use cycles ISO 80601-2-56:2017." (Implied satisfactory results as it concluded differences do not raise new safety questions).

    Detailed Study Information:

    1. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

      • Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in terms of number of neonates or temperature readings. The document mentions "A short duration (3 hour) and long duration (12 hour) clinical evaluation was performed".
      • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The studies were "clinical evaluations" and thus would be prospective in nature, designed to test the device's performance directly on subjects.
    2. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications:

      • Not applicable in the context of this device. This is a temperature monitor; ground truth is established by a reference thermometer (Philips Intellivue MP30) or direct physical measurements, not by expert interpretation.
    3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

      • Not applicable as the ground truth is objective temperature measurement rather than subjective interpretation requiring adjudication.
    4. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:

      • No, a MRMC study was not described. This type of study is typically for evaluating diagnostic imaging AI where human readers interpret cases. The Celsi Monitor is a measurement device.
    5. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

      • Yes, the clinical evaluation directly assessed the device's (Celsi Monitor's) temperature measurement performance. While used by nurses, the core "performance" being evaluated (temperature accuracy) is a standalone function of the device itself.
    6. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

      • Reference device measurement: The "subject device was compared to the reference device, the Philips Intellivue MP30 (K061610)." The Philips Intellivue MP30 serves as the ground truth for temperature measurements.
    7. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

      • Not applicable. This document describes the clearance of a medical device (a thermometer), not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense for machine learning. The device's performance is based on its physical design and calibration, not learned from data.
    8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:

      • Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this type of device.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Why did this record match?
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The monitor is indicated for use by healthcare professionals whenever there is a need for monitoring the physiological parameters of patients. The monitor is intended to be used for monitoring and recording of, and to generate alarms, for, multiple physiological parameters of adults, pediatrics, and neonates. The monitor is intended for use by trained healthcare professionals in a hospital environment. The monitor is also intended for use during patient transport inside and outside of the hospital environment. The monitor is only for use on one patient at a time. It is not intended for home use. Not a therapeutic device. The monitor is for prescription use only. The ECG measurement is intended to be used for diagnostic recording of rhythm and detailed morphology of complex cardiac complexes (according to AAMI EC 11). ST segment monitoring is intended for use with adult patients only and is not clinically validated for use with neonatal and pediatric patients. The Predictive Temperature unit is intended for use with adult and pediatric patients in a hospital environment. The SSC Sepsis Protocol, in the ProtocolWatch clinical decision support tool, is intended for use with adult patients only. The derived measurement Pulse Pressure Variation (PPV) is intended for use with sedated patients receiving controlled mechanical ventilation and mainly free from cardiac arrhythmia. The PPV measurement has been validated only for adult patients. The transcutaneous gas measurement (tcGas) is restricted to neonatal patients only. BIS is intended for use under the direct supervision of a licensed health care practitioner or by personnel trained in its proper use. It is intended for use on adult and pediatric patients within a hospital or medical facility providing patient care to monitor the state of the brain by data acquisition of EEG signals. The BIS may be used as an aid in monitoring the effects of certain anesthetic agents. Use of BIS monitoring to help guide anesthetic administration may be associated with the reduction of the incidence of awareness with recall in adults during general anesthesia and sedation.

    Device Description

    The Philips IntelliVue Patient Monitors family comprises the multiparameter patient monitor series: MP2, X2, MP5, MP5T, MP5SC, MP20, MP30, MP40, MP50, MP60, MP70, MP80, MP90 and MX600, MX700, and MX800. Each monitor consists of a display unit including built-in or separate central processing unit (CPU) and physiological measurement modules. All monitors share the same architecture of CPU units and exactly the same software is executed on each monitor. The monitors measure physiological parameters such as: Sp02, pulse, ECG, arrhythmia, ST, QT, respiration, invasive and noninvasive blood pressure, temperature, CO2, spirometry, C.O., CCO, tcp02/ tcpCO2, S02, Sv02, Scv02, EEG, and BIS. They generate alarms, record physiological signals, store derived data, and communicate derived data and alarms to the central station. IntelliVue series MP2, X2, MP5, MP5T, MP5SC, MP20, and MP30 are robust, portable, lightweight, compact in size and modular in design patient monitors with interfaces to dedicated external measurement devices. Models MP2, X2, MP5, MP5T, and MP5SC also incorporate multiple built-in physiological measurements. IntelliVue series MP40, MP50, MP60, MP70, MX600, MX700, and MX800 are patient monitors with built-in central processing unit, flat panel display and interfaces to dedicated external measurement devices. Models MX600, MX700, and MX800 have widescreen displays. IntelliVue series MP80 and MP90 are patient monitors with flat panel display and central processing unit as separate components. They have interfaces to dedicated external measurement devices.

    AI/ML Overview

    Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information based on the provided text, structured as requested:

    Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for Philips IntelliVue Patient Monitors (Software Revision J.04)

    Overview:
    The submission describes a software modification to existing Philips IntelliVue Patient Monitors (MP2, X2, MP5, MP5T, MP5SC, MP20, MP30, MP40, MP50, MP60, MP70, MP80, MP90, MX600, MX700, and MX800) to introduce a new SpO2 intelligent alarm delay feature called 'Smart Alarm Delay'. The study aims to demonstrate that this modified device is as safe and effective as the predicate devices.

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    The document does not explicitly present a quantitative table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance metrics for the 'Smart Alarm Delay' feature in the format often seen for diagnostic devices (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy). However, the "Summary of V&V activities" section outlines the general performance goals and outcomes.

    Acceptance Criteria CategorySpecific Criteria/GoalReported Device Performance
    Clinical EvaluationUsers' understanding of the 'Smart Alarm Delay' feature as described in the Instructions for Use (IFU)."The vast majority of test persons understood the implications of using the new SpO2 Smart Alarm Delay feature."
    Users' perception of the feature's usefulness and clinical meaningfulness."They regarded it as a helpful alternative to the existing SpO2 standard alarm delay."
    Functionality TestingEffectiveness of implemented design risk mitigation measures (from Hazard Analysis)."The test results have confirmed the effectiveness of implemented design risk mitigation measures."
    Safe, effective, and according to specifications and IFU for SpO2 alarm derivation and delays of modified software."All specified criteria have been met. The test results have confirmed that the SpO2 alarm derivation and the SpO2 alarm delays of the modified IntelliVue Monitors have functioned safe, effective and according to the specifications and Instructions for Use."
    Regression TestingFunctionality of related, unmodified software parts."All specified criteria have been met. The test results have confirmed that the SpO2 parameter of the modified IntelliVue Monitors have functioned safe, effective and according to the specifications and Instructions for Use."
    Functionality of alarms of the IntelliVue Patient Monitors."All specified criteria have been met. The test results have confirmed that the alarms of the modified IntelliVue Monitors have functioned safe, effective and according to the specifications and Instructions for Use."
    Performance (Accuracy/Safety)Device performance, accuracy, and compliance with SpO2 standard ISO 9919."The modification does not affect device performance in general and device accuracy in particular... The modification does also not affect any safety and performance aspects covered by the SpO2 standard ISO 9919. Therefore, verification and validation executed on the subject IntelliVue Patient Monitors according to the standard ISO 9919 prior to the minor modification... is still valid and covers the modified devices."

    2. Sample Size and Data Provenance for the Test Set

    • Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact number of individuals (test persons) involved in the clinical evaluation. It refers to "two user groups - one consisting of physicians and one consisting of nurses" and later "the vast majority of test persons." This suggests a qualitative assessment rather than a statistically powered performance study.
    • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but clinical evaluation of user understanding implies prospective testing with healthcare professionals. The country of origin for this specific clinical evaluation is not mentioned.

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

    • The "clinical evaluation" appears to focus on user comprehension and acceptance, not on establishing a traditional clinical "ground truth" for diagnostic accuracy.
    • Number of Experts: Two user groups were formed: "one consisting of physicians and one consisting of nurses." The exact number of individuals within each group is not provided.
    • Qualifications of Experts:
      • Physicians
      • Nurses
      • No specific years of experience or subspecialty are mentioned.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    Not applicable. The clinical evaluation described is a qualitative assessment of user understanding and perception, not a diagnostic accuracy study requiring adjudication of results.

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

    No. The document describes a software modification to an existing patient monitor to add an intelligent alarm delay feature. The "clinical evaluation" focused on user understanding and acceptance of this feature, not on comparing reader performance with and without AI assistance.

    6. Standalone Performance Study (Algorithm Only)

    No, not in the traditional sense of a standalone diagnostic algorithm performance study. The modification is an alarm delay feature within an existing monitoring system. The document states:

    • "The new 'Smart Alarm Delay' feature is isolated from the SpO2 measurement algorithm, i.e. signal acquisition and numeric processing."
    • "The devices hardware and all accessories including, but not limited to the SpO2 sensors remain completely unchanged."
    • "The modification does not affect device performance in general and device accuracy in particular."
    • Performance aspects covered by ISO 9919 from prior V&V are considered still valid.

    This indicates that the fundamental SpO2 measurement accuracy itself was not re-evaluated as a standalone algorithm performance, as the algorithm for SpO2 measurement remained unchanged. The focus was on the alarm delay logic and its user-facing implications.

    7. Type of Ground Truth Used

    For the "clinical evaluation" regarding the 'Smart Alarm Delay' feature, the "ground truth" appears to be user understanding and subjective opinion as gathered directly from physicians and nurses. For the core SpO2 measurement, the ground truth and performance validation are based on prior verification and validation activities conducted according to ISO 9919 for the predicate device, which are deemed still valid.

    8. Sample Size for the Training Set

    Not applicable. This submission is for a software modification adding an alarm delay feature, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a dedicated training set for model development. The 'Smart Alarm Delay' is described as being "based on the same fundamental principle" as the predicate's 'SatSeconds' alarm management technique, implying a rule-based or empirically derived logic rather than a learned model.

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

    Not applicable, as no training set for a machine learning model was described or used.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Why did this record match?
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    Indicated for use by health care professionals whenever there is a need for monitoring the physiological parameters of patients. Intended for monitoring and recording of and to generate alarms for multiple physiological parameters of adults, pediatrics and neonates in hospital environments. The MP2, X2, MP20, MP30, MP40, and MP50 are additionally intended for use in transport situations within hospital environments. The MP5 is also intended for use during patient transport outside of a hospital environment.

    Device Description

    The Philips MP2, X2, MP5, MP20, MP30, MP40, MP50, MP60, MP70, MP80, and MP90 IntelliVue Patient Monitors. The modification is the introduction of the models MP2 and X2 IntelliVue Patient Monitors and the introduction of software release F.00 for the entire IntelliVue Patient Monitors family, models MP2, X2, MP5, MP20, MP30, MP40, MP50, MP60, MP70, MP80, and MP90.

    AI/ML Overview

    The Philips IntelliVue Patient Monitors (models MP2, X2, MP5, MP20, MP30, MP40, MP50, MP60, MP70, MP80, and MP90, with software release F.00) are intended for monitoring and recording multiple physiological parameters and generating alarms for adults, pediatrics, and neonates in hospital environments. Some models (MP2, X2, MP20, MP30, MP40, MP50) are also for hospital transport, and the MP5 is for transport outside the hospital. They are intended for use by healthcare professionals.

    Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance:

    The provided 510(k) summary states that "Pass/Fail criteria were based on the specifications cleared for the predicate devices." However, it does not provide specific quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed reported device performance metrics in a table. It generally states that "test results showed substantial equivalence" and that the "results demonstrate that the Philips IntelliVue Patient Monitors meet all reliability requirements and performance claims."

    Acceptance Criteria (Generic as specific criteria are not provided)Reported Device Performance (Generalized as specific metrics are not provided)
    Device functions as intended without hazardous failures.Testing established performance, functionality, and reliability.
    Meets safety and performance requirements.Test results showed substantial equivalence to predicate devices.
    Conforms to EMC and environmental standards.EMC and environmental test results were satisfactory.
    Maintains reliability.Meets all reliability requirements.

    Study Details:

    1. Sample size for the test set and data provenance:
      The document does not specify the sample size for the test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It only mentions "system level and regression tests, safety and performance tests, EMC and environmental tests, such as testing from the hazard analysis."

    2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and qualifications:
      This information is not provided in the document.

    3. Adjudication method for the test set:
      This information is not provided in the document.

    4. Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study:
      No MRMC comparative effectiveness study is mentioned. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through technical verification and validation, not comparative effectiveness with human readers.

    5. Standalone (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) study:
      The submission describes testing activities for the device itself ("Verification, validation, and testing activities establish the performance, functionality, and reliability characteristics of the modified devices"). This implies standalone performance testing of the device's functions, but details on specific standalone performance metrics or a study explicitly labeled as such are not provided. The device is a patient monitor, implying continuous monitoring of physiological parameters by the device itself before human interpretation.

    6. Type of ground truth used:
      The document does not explicitly state the type of ground truth used for performance evaluation, beyond stating that "Pass/Fail criteria were based on the specifications cleared for the predicate devices." For physiological monitoring, ground truth would typically come from calibrated reference measurements or expert clinical assessment for phenomena like arrhythmia detection.

    7. Sample size for the training set:
      This information is not provided. The document describes verification and validation activities for the device, but does not mention "training sets," which implies that this device might not incorporate machine learning or AI that requires a distinct training phase in the way a diagnostic imaging AI would.

    8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
      As no training set is explicitly mentioned or implied to be relevant to the device's development as described, this information is not provided.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1