Search Results

The Monitor B40 is a portable multi-parameter unit to be used for monitoring and recording of, and to generate alarms for, multiple physiological parameters of adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients in a hospital environment and during intrahospital transport. The Monitor B40 is intended for use under the direct supervision of a licensed health care practitioner. The Monitor B40 is not intended for use during MRI.

The proposed Monitor B40V3 is still a multi-parameter patient monitor. It retains the features of the predicate Monitor B40V2.1 (K133576) and now complies with IEC60601-1 3rd edition and RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) requirements, enabled time synchronization in HL7(Health Level 7) network environment, verified compatibility with CARESCAPE Central Station (K133882) and supported OAC (Optional Activation Codes) tool used in manufacturing and service for product license control. As with the predicate Monitor B40V2.1 (K133576), the proposed Monitor B40V3 continues to interface with following optional extension modules: E-MiniC module (K052582), Airway Gas Option Module (N-CAiO) (K133576), CARESCAPE Respiratory modules (E-sCO and E-sCAiO) (K123195) and Entropy module. Comparing with E-Entropy module version (E-ENTROPY-00) (K061907) supported in predicate device, the proposed Monitor B40V3 supports improved E-Entropy module version (E-ENTROPY-01) (K150298). As with the predicate Monitor B40V2.1 (K133576), the proposed Monitor B40V3 continues to be compatible with CARESCAPE Respiratory modules (E-sCOV and E-sCAiOV) (K123195) with spirometry function disabled. As with the predicate Monitor B40V2.1 (K133576), the proposed Monitor B40V3 still includes features and subsystems that are optional or configurable. The proposed Monitor B40V3 will continue interfacing to a variety of existing central station systems via a cabled network interface. As with the predicate Monitor B40V2.1 (K133576), the proposed Monitor B40V3 keeps a mounting plate on the bottom of the monitor. The monitor can be mounted in a variety of ways (e.g. shelf, countertop, table, wall, pole, or head/foot board) using existing mounting accessories.

The provided text describes the GE Medical Systems China Co., Ltd. Monitor B40 (K151063), a multi-parameter patient monitor. However, it does not include detailed acceptance criteria or a specific study proving the device meets those criteria in terms of analytical or clinical performance.

Instead, the document focuses on:

• Substantial Equivalence: Demonstrating that the Monitor B40 (V3) is substantially equivalent to its predicate device (Monitor B40V2.1, K133576).
• Design Changes and Rationale: Explaining minor design modifications (e.g., compliance with IEC60601-1 3rd edition, RoHS compliance, time synchronization, compatibility updates, component upgrades due to end-of-life parts) and asserting that these changes do not impact the device's ability to obtain patient measurements or its safety/effectiveness.
• Compliance with Standards: Listing numerous voluntary and international standards the device and its applications comply with (e.g., IEC 60601-1, IEC 62304, ISO 80601-2-56).
• Quality Assurance Measures: Detailing the development process, including risk analysis, requirements reviews, design reviews, and various levels of testing (unit, integration, final acceptance, performance, safety).

Therefore, many of the requested points cannot be extracted from the provided text. The document explicitly states: "The subject of this premarket submission. The proposed Monitor B40V3 did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence." This indicates that detailed performance metrics from a dedicated clinical study for this specific device (B40V3) are not present in this submission.

Here is what can be inferred or explicitly stated based on the provided text, and where information is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly listed as quantitative performance metrics for a specific function (e.g., arrhythmia detection sensitivity/specificity, NIBP accuracy). Instead, acceptance criteria implicitly refer to compliance with the listed international standards and demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate device, implying that its performance is at least as good as the predicate.
• Reported Device Performance: No specific quantitative performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision) are provided for any of the monitored parameters (ECG, SpO2, NIBP, etc.) for the Monitor B40V3 itself. The document claims "no changes to the parameter measuring principle" and that "all related risks were re-evaluated and found to be unchanged," implying performance is comparable to the predicate device.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Not provided. The document does not describe specific test sets for analytical or clinical performance of the device's monitoring functions. It mentions "Testing on unit level," "Integration testing," "Final acceptance testing," "Performance testing," and "Safety testing" as part of quality assurance, but no details on size, provenance, or type of data are given.

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/Not provided. Since no specific clinical or analytical performance study with a 'test set' requiring expert ground truth is described, this information is absent. The submission focuses on technical compliance and substantial equivalence rather than de novo performance validation.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. As no performance study with a test set requiring adjudication is described.

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/Not provided. This device is a physiological monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging device for human readers. No MRMC study was conducted or described.

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

• Not explicitly described as a standalone performance study. The device itself functions in a "standalone" mode as a monitor, and its algorithms (e.g., ECG EKPRO V12, NIBP) operate without human intervention in their core function. However, no specific "standalone study" with performance metrics for these algorithms is described in this document for the B40V3. The document states that the Monitor B40 can be a stand-alone monitor or interfaced to other devices.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. For a physiological monitor, ground truth would typically be established against highly accurate reference devices or established clinical standards. However, since no specific clinical performance study is detailed, the method for establishing ground truth for performance metrics is not mentioned. Compliance testing for standards (e.g., IEC, ISO) would rely on defined test methodologies and reference values.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Not provided. There is no mention of a "training set" for AI or machine learning algorithms within this submission. The device uses established algorithms for physiological parameter monitoring.

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

• Not applicable/Not provided. As there is no mention of a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device