Search Results

The CARESCAPE ONE is a multi-parameter physiological patient monitor intended for use in multiple areas and intrahospital transport within a professional healthcare facility.

The CARESCAPE ONE is indicated for the monitoring of hemodynamic (including ECG, ST segment, arrhythmia detection, invasive pressure, non-invasive blood pressure, SpO2, pulse rate, and temperature), and respiratory (impedance respiration and CO2 airway gas) physiological parameters.

The CARESCAPE ONE provides ECG, ST segment, arrhythmia detection, invasive pressure, non-invasive blood pressure, SpO2, pulse rate, temperature, impedance respiration, and CO2 airway gas parameter acquisition and monitoring.

The CARESCAPE ONE is indicated for use on adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients and on one patient at a time. The CARESCAPE ONE is indicated for use under the direct supervision of a licensed healthcare practitioner, or by personnel trained in the proper use of the equipment in a professional healthcare facility.

Contraindications for using CARESCAPE ONE:

The CARESCAPE ONE is not intended for use within a controlled MR environment.

CARESCAPE ONE is a new patient monitor device based on GE Healthcare predicate devices, the Patient Data Module (K071073) and the CARESCAPE B450 (K132533).

CARESCAPE ONE, with CARESCAPE Software version 3 belongs to the CARESCAPE V3 patient monitor family. The concept of the CARESCAPE ONE is to provide a flexible bedside monitor that can also be used during intra-hospital transport. The flexibility of the CARESCAPE ONE allows the user to configure the monitor's vital sign acquisition for only the parameters they require. This is achieved using plug and play Active Cable Modules (ACM) that connect via medical grade USB ports on the CARESCAPE ONE monitor. Note that the USB ports are not compatible with commercial USB items on the market due to a custom connector design. Each ACM is dedicated to measuring a particular parameter, including ECG/Respiration, Invasive Blood Pressure, Temperature, SpO2, or CO2. The only exception is the Non-Invasive Blood Pressure (NIBP) measurement which does not require a separate ACM since the capability to measure NIBP is built-in to the CARESCAPE ONE monitor itself. The ACM's are CARESCAPE TEMP, CARESCAPE PRES, CARESCAPE ECG, CARESCAPE SpO2 (TruSignal), CARESCAPE SpO2 -Nellcor, CARESCAPE SpO2 - Masimo and CARESCAPE CO2 - LoFlo. CARESCAPE SpO2 - Nellcor, CARESCAPE SpO2 -Masimo, and CARESCAPE CO2 - LoFlo have been developed by their respective companies/manufacturers (OEM) for use with the CARESCAPE ONE. The technology from each OEM has received 510(k) clearance and is adapted to function with the CARESCAPE ONE. The OEM technologies are not new and are not a part of this submission, only their integration into the Parameters/Active Cable Modules for use with the CARESCAPE ONE is covered in this 510(k).

CARESCAPE ONE provides the users the acquired display values, waveforms, alarms and status messages in compact footprint monitor that runs on an internal battery as well as AC power when connected to the docking station.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and supporting studies for the CARESCAPE ONE device, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The FDA 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing a direct table of specific acceptance criteria with corresponding performance values for all features. However, it does highlight performance claims and comparisons for key components, specifically arrhythmia detection and SpO2.

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

• Arrhythmia (EK-Pro V14): The document references ANSI/AAMI EC57:1998 (R)2012. This standard specifies databases (e.g., AHA, MIT-BIH) that are used for testing arrhythmia algorithms. The specific sample size from these databases used for EK-Pro V14 testing is not explicitly stated in this 510(k) summary, but it would be derived from the standard's requirements.
  • Data Provenance: The databases mentioned in EC57 are typically retrospective, internationally recognized ECG databases. The exact country of origin for the data used for this specific EK-Pro V14 validation is not specified, but the standard's databases often compile data from various global sources.
• SpO2 (TruSignal V3): The document states a "controlled desaturation study." The sample size is not explicitly stated in this summary.
  • Data Provenance: A controlled desaturation study is a prospective clinical study designed to test pulse oximeter accuracy. The country of origin for this study is not specified.

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

• Arrhythmia (EK-Pro V14): When using standard databases like those referenced by ANSI/AAMI EC57, the ground truth (arrhythmia annotations) is typically established by multiple, highly experienced cardiologists or cardiac electrophysiologists. The exact number and qualifications for the original annotation of the standard databases are not specified in this document, as the standard itself defines these.
• SpO2 (TruSignal V3): For controlled desaturation studies, the "ground truth" for SpO2 is provided by a CO-oximeter measurement, which itself is a highly accurate laboratory method for oxygen saturation. This is an objective measurement rather than expert consensus. Therefore, "experts" in the traditional sense for establishing ground truth are not directly applicable here.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Arrhythmia (EK-Pro V14): For standard databases, ground truth annotation often involves multiple experts reviewing and adjudicating discrepancies, sometimes with a "majority rules" or senior expert decision process. The specific adjudication method for the creation of the databases referenced by EC57 is not detailed in this summary, but would adhere to the methodologies defined by the creators of those databases.
• SpO2 (TruSignal V3): As the ground truth comes from CO-oximetry, an objective measurement, adjudication by experts is not applicable.

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

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was NOT done. The document explicitly states: "Clinical studies of the CARESCAPE ONE device performance were not required to establish substantial equivalence." This indicates that human-in-the-loop performance with or without AI assistance was not assessed in this submission for primary equivalence.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) was Done

• Yes, standalone performance was assessed for key algorithms:
  • EK-Pro V14 Arrhythmia Detection algorithm: Its performance was evaluated against the ANSI/AAMI EC57 standard, comparing it to the predicate's EK-Pro V13 algorithm. This is a standalone algorithm performance evaluation.
  • TruSignal V3 SpO2 algorithm: Its accuracy was validated in a controlled desaturation study against CO-oximetry. This is also a standalone algorithm performance evaluation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Arrhythmia (EK-Pro V14): The ground truth would be expert consensus annotations of ECG waveforms from standard arrhythmia databases (e.g., those specified in ANSI/AAMI EC57).
• SpO2 (TruSignal V3): The ground truth was objective laboratory measurement using CO-oximetry in a controlled study. This is considered a gold standard for blood oxygen saturation.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not explicitly state the sample size used for training the EK-Pro V14 arrhythmia detection algorithm or the TruSignal V3 SpO2 algorithm. In 510(k) submissions, training set details (especially for existing, updated algorithms) are often not required to be as extensively disclosed as test set performance, particularly when demonstrating equivalence to a predicate.

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

• The document does not explicitly state how the ground truth for the training sets of the EK-Pro V14 or TruSignal V3 SpO2 algorithms was established. For complex algorithms like these, training data is typically meticulously annotated by a combination of clinical experts (for arrhythmia) or using highly accurate reference methods (for SpO2) and then verified. Again, in a 510(k) for an updated algorithm or component, the full developmental history and training data specifics may not be detailed if the focus is on demonstrating equivalent performance post-modifications.

Ask a specific question about this device

The indications for use of the BeneVision Central Monitoring System include:

• · Real time viewing of patient clinical data and alarms
• · Storage and Historical review of patient clinical data and alarms
• · Printing of real time and historical patient data
• · Configuration of local settings as well as synchronizing settings across the network to a remote device
• · Transfer of patient clinical data and settings between several CentralStations

The Bene Vision Central Monitoring System is a networked patient monitoring system intended for use in a fixed location, installed in professional healthes to provide clinicians remote patient monitoring. The network connections between the various devices can be any combination of Ethernet (Wireless WIFI (WLAN), and Wireless WMTS. The Bene Vision Central Monitoring System supports one or more Mindray compatible physiological monitors and will display, store, print, and transfer information received from the compatible monitors; The Bene Vision Central Monitoring System supports bi-directional configuration of the compatible monitors. No data processing is done by the BeneVision Central Monitoring System for data received from compatible monitors.

The telemetry monitoring systems are designed to acquire and monitor physiological data for ambulating patients within a defined coverage area. The BeneVision Central Monitoring System supports Telemetry Systems: TMS-6016, Telepack-608, TMS60, and TM80.

· The TMS-6016 transmitter is intended for use on Adult and Pediatric patients to monitor ECG and SpO2 physiological data.

· The Panorama Telepack-608 transmitter is intended for use on Adult patients to monitor ECG and SpO2 physiological data.

· The TMS60 transmitter is intended for use on Adult and Pediatric patients over three years old to monitor ECG, SpO2, NIBP and Resp physiological data. The physiological data can be reviewed locally on the display of the transmitter. The CentralStation will support ECG, Heart Rate, SpO2, NIBP, Resp, Pulse Rate, Arrhythmia analysis, QT monitoring, and ST Segment Analysis for the TMS60.

· The TM80 telemetry monitor is intended for use on Adult and Pediatric patients over three years old to monitor ECG, SpO2, NIBP and Resp physiological data. The physiological data can be analyzed, alarmed, stored, reviewed locally on the display of the monitor, and the CentralStation can config and display the physiological parameters from the TM80.

The BeneVision Central Monitoring System is intended for use in professional healthcare facilities under the direct supervision of a licensed healthcare practitioner.

The BeneVision Central Monitoring System is a networked patient monitoring system intended for use in a fixed location, installed in professional healthcare facilities to provide clinicians remote patient monitoring. The network connections between the various devices can be any combination of Ethernet (Wired), Wireless WIFI (WLAN), and Wireless WMTS.

The BeneVision Central Monitoring System supports one or more Mindray compatible physiological monitors and will display, store, print, and transfer information received from the compatible monitors; The BeneVision Central Monitoring System supports bi-directional configuration of the compatible monitors. No data processing is done by the BeneVision Central Monitoring System for data received from compatible monitors.

The BeneVision Central Monitoring System consists of the following components:

• 1. CentralStation
• 2. ViewStation
• 3. WorkStation
• 4. CMSViewer
• 5. Telemetry Systems (TMS 6016. Telepak-608. TMS60. TM80)

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information provided, structured as requested.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The provided document describes modifications to an existing device (BeneVision Central Monitoring System) and aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K162607). The document presents a comparison of technological characteristics as the primary proof of meeting acceptance criteria, rather than explicit quantitative acceptance metrics for performance. The "Performance Data" section details types of testing conducted to ensure the device performs as designed and meets relevant standards.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Since explicit quantitative acceptance criteria with specific threshold values for "device performance" in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, etc., are not directly stated in the tables for the subject device (as would be common for diagnostic AI), the "Acceptance Criteria" column will reflect the stated functionalities or characteristics of the subject device, and "Reported Device Performance" will indicate if the device meets these in comparison to the predicate. The overall "acceptance criterion" is essentially demonstrating that the changes do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness and that the device continues to meet relevant standards.

Study Information

The document describes software verification and validation, electromagnetic compatibility, electrical safety, and bench testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence. It is important to note that this is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for a modified device, not a de novo submission or a claim of new clinical efficacy. Therefore, the "studies" outlined are primarily focused on engineering and performance verification of the changes.

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

   • The document does not specify sample sizes for test sets in terms of patient data or clinical cases. The testing appears to be focused on functional and system-level verification, as well as conformance to technical standards.
   • Data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not provided as the focus is on engineering verification.

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

   • This information is not applicable or provided. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through technical comparisons and compliance with relevant standards, rather than establishing a clinical "ground truth" derived from expert interpretation of medical images or patient data in a comparative clinical study.

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

   • This information is not applicable or provided. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving multiple readers and ground truth evaluation, which is not the focus of this 510(k) summary.

4. 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 comparative effectiveness study was done or reported. The device (BeneVision Central Monitoring System) is a patient monitoring system which, based on the description, primarily displays, stores, prints, and transfers physiological data and alarms. While it performs some analysis (e.g., arrhythmia, ST segment), it's not described as an AI-powered diagnostic tool requiring a human-in-the-loop performance study in the way an AI-CADx system would. The changes described are enhancements to the monitoring system's capabilities and compliance with updated standards.

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

   • The document implies that elements like the "Mindray ECG algorithm modifications" and "Intelligent arrhythmia alarm" have undergone verification to ensure they perform according to specifications (e.g., "enhanced performance," "same methods employed by the Central Station"). However, a formal "standalone performance study" with typical metrics like sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score against a reference standard on a clinical dataset is not explicitly detailed or quantified in the provided text. The verification likely involved testing against known waveforms and simulated conditions to confirm algorithm accuracy according to engineering specifications.

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

   • Given the nature of the device (a core patient monitoring system), the "ground truth" for its functional performance would typically involve:
     • Reference signals/simulators: For verifying ECG, SpO2, NIBP, RESP parameters against known inputs.
     • Standardized test conditions: For EMC, electrical safety, and alarm system performance.
     • Software testing (unit, integration, system): Using expected outputs for given inputs to verify logic and calculations.
     • Predicate device comparison: The predicate device itself acts as a reference for expected performance in many aspects of substantial equivalence.
   • Specific details about ground truth for individual algorithms (e.g., how the "enhanced performance" of the ECG algorithm was measured against a reference standard) are not provided beyond the general statement of "functional and system level testing."

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not mention a training set, as these are engineering changes and updates to a non-AI patient monitoring system, not a de novo AI/ML algorithm requiring a distinct training phase.

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

   • This section is not applicable, as no training set is mentioned.

Ask a specific question about this device