Search Results

When used in NIV mode:
The Airvo 3 NV provides non-invasive ventilator support for non-ventilator dependent, spontaneously breathing adult patients (66 lb/30 kg and above) with respiratory insufficiency. It is intended to be used in hospitals. It is not intended for life support.

When used in High Flow mode:
The Airvo 3 NIV is intended to provide high flow warmed and humidified respiratory gases for administration to spontaneously breathing infant, child, adolescent and adult patients in hospitals. It adds heat and moisture to the flow of air, or blended air/medical oxygen mixture, and assures the user of the air/oxygen mixture using an integrated oxygen analyzer and visual display. The flow may be from 2 to 70 L/min depending on the patient interface. The Airvo 3 NVV provides high flow gases with simultaneous oxygen delivery to spontaneously breathing patients with or without bypassed upper airways in hospitals.

The Airvo 3 NIV provides high flow gases with simultaneous oxygen delivery through nasal cannula interfaces to augment the breathing of spontaneously breathing patients suffering from respiratory distress and/or hypoxemia in the hospital setting. The Airvo 3 NIV is not intended to provide total ventilatory requirements and is not intended for use during field transport.

AirSpiral NIV tube and chamber kit (900PT573):
For use with noninvasive ventilator support for non-ventilator dependent, spontaneously breathing adult patients (66 lbs./30 kg and above) with respiratory insufficiency. It is intended to be used in hospitals. It is not intended for life support.

The subject device, F&P Airvo 3 NIV is a respiratory support device for the delivery of High Flow and NIV (Non-Invasive Ventilation) therapy intended to treat spontaneously breathing patients who would benefit from receiving High Flow or respiratory pressure support. The Airvo 3 NIV is NOT to be used for life-supporting or life-sustaining purposes.

The Airvo 3 NIV is a non-implantable, prescription-only device, provided in a non-sterile state, and intended to be used by healthcare professionals, namely respiratory therapists, doctors and nurses in hospitals. When used in High Flow mode, the Airvo 3 NIV delivers gas at flow rates of between 2-70 L/min. The Airvo 3 NIV also has three non-invasive ventilation therapy modes: CPAP, Bi-Level S/T and Bi-Level PCV.

The AirSpiral NIV Tube and Chamber Kit is a single limb circuit kit designed for use with the Airvo 3 NIV device, for non- ventilator dependent, spontaneously breathing adult patients with respiratory insufficiency.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the F&P Airvo 3 NIV device. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a detailed study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/ML algorithm.

Therefore, many of the requested items (e.g., sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance, training set size, ground truth for training set) are not applicable to this document as it does not describe an AI/ML device or a study of its clinical performance against specific acceptance criteria for such an algorithm.

However, I can extract information related to performance testing from the "PERFORMANCE DATA VII." section, which includes "Bench / Performance Testing."

Here's an attempt to answer your request based on the provided document, noting the limitations due to the nature of the submission:

Acceptance Criteria and Study for F&P Airvo 3 NIV (K233643)

The F&P Airvo 3 NIV is a respiratory support device and not an AI/ML driven diagnostic or therapeutic device. The "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in this context refer to the non-clinical testing performed to establish substantial equivalence to predicate devices and ensure general safety and effectiveness in line with recognized medical device standards.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document lists performance testing conducted but does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria or reported device performance values in a table format. Instead, it states that the testing "demonstrated the appropriate electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility profile for the device" and that "The testing demonstrated the appropriate biocompatibility profile for the device" and "The system complies with ANSI AAMI ES 60601-1:2005/(R)2012 and A1:2012, IEC 60601-1-2:2014 and AIM Standard 7351731 Rev. 3.00 2017-02-23" as well as "Alarms testing was performed in accordance with ANSI AAMI IEC 60601-1-8:2006 and A1:2012." For reprocessing, "The acceptance criteria and endpoints used are based on the following standard: AAMI TIR30:2011". For comparative performance, it states "Comparative performance testing was performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence."

Given the information, a table with specific numerical acceptance criteria and performance values cannot be fully populated as requested for items like blending accuracy, flow rate accuracy, etc. The document implies compliance with relevant standards as the "acceptance criteria."

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

• Not applicable for an AI/ML context. This device is hardware with embedded software, thus performance testing involves engineering verification and validation, not a test set of patient data for an algorithm. The testing described focuses on functional aspects of the device, not an algorithm's performance on a dataset.

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

• Not applicable for an AI/ML context. Ground truth, in the sense of clinical expert assessment of data, is not mentioned in relation to the device's technical performance testing.

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

• Not applicable for an AI/ML context. This type of adjudication is relevant for resolving discrepancies in expert interpretations of clinical data, which is not described here.

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 applicable. This device is not an AI-assisted tool for human readers.

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

• Not applicable. This device does not feature a standalone algorithm performing a diagnostic or therapeutic task.

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

• For engineering and performance testing described (electrical safety, EMC, flow rate accuracy, etc.), the "ground truth" would be established physical and engineering principles, international standards, and measurements from calibrated reference instruments. It is not clinical "ground truth" as typically defined for AI/ML performance.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. There is no mention of an AI/ML training set. Software verification and validation refer to standard software engineering practices.

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

• Not applicable. There is no mention of an AI/ML training set or its associated ground truth establishment.

Ask a specific question about this device

The device is intended to provide ventilation for non-dependent, spontaneously breathing adult and pediatric patients (30 lb / 13 kg and above) with respiratory insufficiency or respiratory failure, with or without obstructive sleep apnea. The device is for non-invasive use, or invasive use (with the use of the ResMed Leak Valve). Operation of the device includes both stationary, such as in hospital or home, or mobile, such as wheelchair usage.

The Stellar 150 is a pressure controlled ventilator using a single limb vented circuit, product code MNT and is substantially equivalent to the already marketed Stellar 150 device (K103167). For both devices as they are substantial equivalent, it is essential that a microprocessor controlled blower generates the required airway pressure. CPAP and Bi-level modes are implemented. With ongoing technological progress, the device is further suitable to include a population above 30 lbs (13 kg) for CPAP and Bilevel modes. The device also includes a volume assured pressure support mode (iVAPS), indicated for patients above 66 lbs (30 kg). The Stellar 150 in combination with the new developed ResMed Leak Valve supports the invasive use therapy. The ResMed Leak Valve incorporates a leak port as well as an integrated anti-asphyxia valve.

The provided document describes a 510(k) submission for the ResMed Stellar 150 ventilator, focusing on a change in the indication for use to include invasive therapy with a new ResMed Leak Valve. The submission asserts substantial equivalence to a previously cleared device (K103167).

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• ISO 5356-1 Anaesthetic and respiratory equipment Conical connectors Part 1: Cones and sockets
• ASTM F 1246-91 Specification for Electrically Powered Home Care Ventilators, Part 1 - Positive-Pressure Ventilators and Ventilator Circuits |
  | System Verification (Stellar 150 + Leak Valve): | "System verification testing was performed as well as bench testing. The side-by-side testing demonstrated that there is no significant difference in delivering invasive therapy using the new ResMed Leak Valve (leak port with integrated anti-asphyxia valve) and therefore the Stellar 150 is Substantially Equivalent to the predicate device."
  "Performance and side-by-side testing demonstrated that there is no significant difference in [safety and effectiveness] between the ResMed Leak Valve and the new ResMed Leak Valve (leak port with integrated anti-asphyxia valve)." (likely a typo, intended to compare the new system to the predicate or non-invasive system) |

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "performance testing," "system verification testing," and "bench testing," but does not provide specific numbers of units tested, test runs, or patient data (as this appears to be a device performance and safety study, not a clinical trial with patient data).
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. Given it's a submission for regulatory clearance of a medical device, the studies are typically conducted by the manufacturer (ResMed) in a controlled environment. The nature of the tests (bench and system verification) suggests laboratory-based testing rather than patient data from a specific country. This is retrospective in the sense that it relies on previously established performance for the core device and new testing for the new component.

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

• The document does not describe a ground truth established by human experts for a test set in the context of diagnostic accuracy. This submission is for a ventilator, and the performance criteria are based on engineering standards (ISO, ASTM) and functional comparisons, not expert interpretation of diagnostic output.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable as there is no "test set" requiring expert adjudication in the context of diagnostic accuracy. The performance is assessed against engineering standards and functional equivalence.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This is a regulatory submission for a continuous ventilator, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. The concept of "human readers" and "AI assistance" is not relevant to this device.

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

• This is not an algorithm-only device. The device itself (ventilator) operates as a standalone unit in delivering therapy. The performance tests described (ISO, ASTM, bench testing) are standalone in the sense that they evaluate the device's functional attributes, not human interaction with an algorithm's output.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" for the performance evaluation of the new ResMed Leak Valve and the combined system is based on:
  • Engineering Standards: Compliance with ISO 5356-1 and ASTM F 1246-91.
  • Functional Equivalence: Demonstrated "no significant difference" in delivering invasive therapy when compared side-by-side to the predicate device/system.
  • Predetermined Acceptance Criteria: The core Stellar 150 device already met these from its prior clearance (K103167).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable, as there is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The VPAP ST-A is indicated to provide non-invasive ventilation for patients weighing more than 30 lbs (13kg) or more than 66 lbs (30kg) in iVAPS mode with respiratory insufficiency or obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The VPAP ST-A is intended for use in the hospital or home.

VPAP ST-A System (VPAP ST-A with H5) is similar to the predicate device(s), using a blower based positive pressure system with an integrated heated humidifier and heater controller. The device platform is similar to the S9 VPAP ST (K102513) and contains a Micro-processor controlled blower system that generates controlled positive airway pressure (CPAP) between 4-20 cmHzO as required to maintain an "air splint" for effective treatment of OSA and (Bilevel) pressures between 3-30 cmHzO for the treatment respiratory insufficiency. The system comprises the flow generator, patient tubing, mask (patient interface), alarm functions and integrated humidifier. Therapy modes contained in the VPAP ST-A are CPAP, Spontaneous, Spontaneous/Timed, Timed, PAC and iVAPS. Therapy modes come from the S9 VPAP ST (K102513) and Stellar 150 (K103167). The functional characteristics of the VPAP ST-A system includes all the clinician and user friendly features of the predicate devices.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the ResMed VPAP ST-A. It discusses the device's substantial equivalence to predicate devices and outlines non-clinical testing. However, it does not contain information about a study that used a test set with established ground truth, MRMC studies, or training sets.

Therefore, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance from a study with a test set, nor can I answer questions related to sample sizes for test/training sets, expert involvement for ground truth, adjudication methods, or MRMC studies, as this information is not present in the document.

Based on the provided text, here's what can be inferred and what cannot:

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

• Cannot be provided directly. The document states: "All bench tests confirmed the product met the predetermined acceptance criteria, this included Pressure. Flow, Pressure Support, Trigger and Cycling, Hypopnea and Apnea tests against the predicate devices using common protocols for both devices." However, the specific acceptance criteria values and the quantitative reported device performance for these criteria are not detailed in the summary.

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. The document describes "bench tests" and "validated patient simulation models" but does not detail a "test set" in the context of patient data with a specific sample size or provenance. It explicitly states: "Clinical data for the VPAP ST-A is not required as the predicate devices have been subjected to clinical trial requirements or validated patient simulation models have been used during the bench testing phases."

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)

• Not applicable/Cannot be provided. As there is no mention of a clinical test set requiring expert ground truth establishment for patient outcomes, this information is not present.

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

• Not applicable/Cannot be provided. Similar to point 3, without a clinical test set subject to human interpretation, adjudication methods are not relevant here.

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, an MRMC study was not done. The document explicitly states: "Clinical data for the VPAP ST-A is not required". The device described is a medical device (ventilator) and not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool that would typically involve human readers.

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

• Yes, in essence, standalone testing was done. The "bench tests" and testing "against the predicate devices using common protocols" along with the use of "validated patient simulation models" can be considered a form of standalone performance assessment against engineering and functional specifications, rather than human-in-the-loop performance. However, this is for the device's core functions, not an 'algorithm' in the typical AI sense.

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

• Objective engineering/functional specifications and predicate device performance. For the bench tests, the "ground truth" would be the pre-defined engineering design specifications for parameters like pressure, flow, trigger, cycling, and apnea/hypopnea detection, as well as the performance characteristics of the predicate devices. These are objective, measurable parameters rather than clinical outcomes or pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Cannot be provided. The device is a ventilator, not an AI model that undergoes "training" in the machine learning sense from a dataset.

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

• Not applicable/Cannot be provided. As there is no training set for an AI model, this question is not relevant.

Summary of what the document does state regarding testing:

• Type of Testing: Non-clinical bench tests and simulation models.
• Confirmation: "All bench tests confirmed the product met the predetermined acceptance criteria."
• Criteria Areas: Pressure, Flow, Pressure Support, Trigger and Cycling, Hypopnea and Apnea tests.
• Comparison Basis: Against predicate devices.
• Protocols: Common protocols for both devices (new and predicate).
• Clinical Data: "Clinical data for the VPAP ST-A is not required."
• Standards: Tested to appropriate FDA consensus standards and other applicable requirements, including IEC 60601-1-2:2007, IEC 60601-1:2005, and IEC 60601-1-8:2006.

Ask a specific question about this device