Search Results

The Passport 17M and Passport 12M patient monitors are intended for monitoring. displaying, reviewing, and transferring of multiple physiological parameters including ECG (3-lead , 5-lead or 12-lead selectable, arrhythmia detection, ST segment analysis, and heart rate (HR)), respiration rate (Resp), temperature (Temp), pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), pulse rate (PR), non-mvasive blood pressure (NIBP), invasive blood pressure(IBP), pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP), cardiac output (C.O.), continuous cardiac output (CCO), mixed/central venous oxygen saturation (Sy()//Scy(), carbon dioxide (CO2), Oxygen (O2), anesthetic gas (AG), impedance cardiograph (ICG), bispectral index (BIS), and respiration mechanics (RM). The equipment also provides an interpretation of resting 12-lead ECG.

All the parameters can be monitored on single adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients with the exception of the following:

• . The arrhythmia detection. ST Segment analysis of Mortara algorithm. BIS, RM, CCO. SvOz/Scv02, and PAWP monitoring are intended for adult and pediatric patients only:
• ST Segment analysis of Mindray algorithm is intended for adult patients only; ●
• C.O. monitoring is restricted to adult patients only: ●
• ICG monitoring is only for use on adult patients who meet the following ● requirements: height: 122 to 229cm, weight: 30 to 155kg.

The monitor is to be used in healthcare facilities by clinical professionals or under their guidance. It should only be used by persons who have received adequate training in its use. It is not intended for helicopter transport, hospital ambulance, or home use.

The T1 Patient Monitor is intended for monitoring, displaying, reviewing, storing, and transferring of multiple physiological parameters including ECG (3-lead, or 12-lead selectable, arrhythmia detection, ST Segment analysis, and heart rate (HR)), respiration (Resp), temperature (Temp), pulse oxygen saturation (SpOz), pulse rate (PR), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), invasive blood pressure (IBP), pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP), and carbon dioxide (CO2). The equipment also provides an interpretation of resting 12-lead ECG.

All the parameters can be monitored on single adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients with the exception of the following:

The arrhythmia detection, ST Segment analysis of Mortara algorithm, and PAWP monitoring are intended for adult and pediatric patients;

ST Segment analysis of Mindray ECG algorithm is intended for adult patients only;

The monitor is to be used in healthcare facilities by clinical professionals or under their guidance. It should only be used by persons who have received adequate training in its use. It is not intended for helicopter transport, hospital ambulance, or home use.

The subject Passport Series Patient Monitors includes three monitors:

• . Passport 12M Patient Monitor
• Passport 17M Patient Monitor ●
• T1 Patient Monitor

All of the devices in the family are multiparameter monitors indicated for monitoring, displaying, reviewing, alarming, and transferring multiple physiological parameters. The Passport 12M and 17M Patient monitors provide patient monitoring capabilities based on the user selected modules that are plugged into the main monitor. The T1 patient monitor is one of the available modules that can be plugged into the Passport 17M or 12M monitor. The T1 can also be used as a standalone monitor and when used as a standalone monitor, it provides a subset of the functions that are provided by Passport 17M and 12M.

Each of the three monitors that are the subject of this 510(k) are modified versions of previously cleared Mindray devices. The Passport 17M and Passport 12M were previously cleared in K132075, on April 18, 2014 and the T1 was previously cleared in K123074 on July 3, 2013.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the Mindray Passport Series Patient Monitors (K143195). This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and a single study proving that the device meets those criteria.

The core of the submission is that the subject devices are modified versions of previously cleared Mindray devices (K132075 and K123074). The performance data cited refers to functional and system-level testing to evaluate the performance of the modifications and ensure continued adherence to specifications and relevant consensus standards. It does not contain information about a specific single study with acceptance criteria and results.

Given the nature of the K143195 submission as an amendment/modification to existing devices, the information provided focuses on the changes and how these changes do not alter the substantial equivalence to the predicate devices. Therefore, the requested information about acceptance criteria and a detailed study proving the device meets those criteria for the entire device as if it were a novel submission is not explicitly present in the provided text.

However, I can extract information related to the performance characteristics, which serve as implicit acceptance criteria based on the predicate device's performance and general recognized standards for patient monitors.

Here's an attempt to structure the answer based on the available information, noting where specific details are not provided:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't present a formal table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance results in a standalone "study summary" format. Instead, it compares the specifications of the subject devices to the predicate device. The "acceptance criteria" are implied to be the specifications of the predicate device and relevant industry standards. The "reported device performance" is generally stated as "Same" or that the new (modified) features "meet specifications" or "are equivalent to the predicate device."

Here's an illustrative table based on the provided "Device Comparison Table," highlighting areas that could be inferred as "acceptance criteria" and "performance":

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

The document does not detail specific sample sizes for test sets for individual parameters or features. It states:

• "Mindray conducted functional and system level testing on the subject devices. The testing provided an evaluation of the performance of the device relevant to each of the modifications to the subject devices since their previous clearance."
• "Mindray has conducted testing to ensure the subject devices meet relevant consensus standards."
• "Mindray has also followed the FDA Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Arrhythmia Detector and Alarm issues on October 28, 2003."
• "Mindray conducted Wireless functionality testing to ensure the performance of the new wireless modules meet specifications and are equivalent to the predicate device."

There is no mention of data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). The studies appear to be internal V&V testing.

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

There is no information provided regarding the number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth for any test sets. The testing referenced appears to be engineering/technical validation against specifications and standards rather than clinical studies requiring expert adjudication of data. For interpretations like 12-lead ECG, it is stated that the feature is equivalent to a previously cleared device (K132026), implying that its validation methods would have been established there.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

No adjudication method is described.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study is mentioned. This type of study is typically done for diagnostic imaging devices or algorithms where human interpretation is a key component and the AI is intended to assist, altering reader performance. For a patient monitor, the performance validation is typically against direct physiological measurements and established standards.

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

The entire device (the patient monitor) is a standalone system in the sense that its algorithms process physiological signals and present data and alarms. The performance data described ("functional and system level testing") would inherently be evaluating the algorithms and hardware in isolation from a human interpretation loop. For example, SpO2 accuracy is measured against a reference, not against a human's interpretation of SpO2. The 12-lead ECG interpretation, being an automated algorithm output, would be assessed for its accuracy as a standalone function.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

Based on the nature of the device (physiological monitor) and the parameters listed, the ground truth would typically be established by:

• Reference standards/equipment: For parameters like NIBP, IBP, SpO2, Temperature, CO2, etc., the device's measurements are compared against highly accurate reference measurement equipment or simulators.
• Known input signals: For features like arrhythmia detection, standardized ECG waveforms with known arrhythmias are often used.
• Clinical data: For capabilities like 12-lead ECG interpretation, ground truth is usually established by highly experienced cardiologists' interpretations, though the document only refers to equivalence to a previously cleared device for this feature.
• Specifications: The "acceptance criteria" are derived from the performance specifications of the predicate device and relevant international standards.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The document does not describe the development or training of AI/ML algorithms. It is a 510(k) for hardware and software modifications to an existing patient monitor, rather than a novel AI/ML device. Therefore, no information on training set sample size is provided. The functions described (e.g., arrhythmia detection, ST segment analysis) typically rely on established signal processing algorithms, not necessarily machine learning requiring explicit "training sets" in the modern sense.

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

As no training set is mentioned for AI/ML algorithms, this information is not applicable and not provided in the document.

Ask a specific question about this device