Search Results

The B&J DVT Foot Garments, Models 820 Series are external pneumatic compression devices intended to lower the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and resulting pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients who may be at risk for thrombosis formation.

The 820 series of DVT foot garments are compression devices. When the devices are attached to a pump system, they provide sequentially gradient pressure to a patient foot for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). When the compression sleeve is inflated, the veins collapse which forces blood to move upward toward the heart. After compression is complete, the sleeves deflate which allows the veins to reopen and bring oxygenated blood to the foot.

820 series includes 820M, 820L, 820MSQ, 820LSQ. Model variations are distinguished by characters. 820 means foot. M means medium size; L means large size. No SQ means intermittent devices; SQ means sequential devices. For example, 820MSQ means the foot garment is with medium size, and used for a sequential pump.

The provided text is a 510(k) submission for a medical device (B&J DVT Foot Garments, Models 820 Series), which is a type of premarket notification to the FDA. It does not describe a study involving an AI/Machine Learning algorithm, human readers, or image analysis. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating the substantial equivalence of the DVT garments to previously cleared predicate devices through non-clinical performance and safety testing.

Therefore, many of the requested criteria for describing an acceptance study for an AI/ML device cannot be extracted from this document, such as:

• Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance for an AI/ML device: The document discusses performance tests for the physical DVT garments (bladder burst, leak, pressure cyclic test), not AI/ML performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC.
• Sample size for test set and data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective): Not applicable for a physical device.
• Number of experts and their qualifications for ground truth: Not applicable for a physical device.
• Adjudication method: Not applicable.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study: Not applicable, as there's no AI involved.
• Standalone (algorithm-only) performance: Not applicable.
• Type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data): Not applicable. The "ground truth" here is physical performance specifications.
• Sample size for training set/How ground truth for training set was established: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and study information relevant to this specific medical device (DVT Garments), even though it doesn't pertain to an AI/ML system as your prompt implies:

Device Description and Purpose:
The B&J DVT Foot Garments, Models 820 Series, are external pneumatic compression devices. They are designed to lower the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and resulting pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients at risk for thrombosis formation. When attached to a pump system, they provide sequentially gradient pressure to a patient's foot.

Study Type:
This is a non-clinical testing study to assess the safety and performance of the physical device and demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, not an AI/ML performance study.

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document states: "All the test results demonstrate 820 series of foot garments meet the requirements of its predefined acceptance criteria and intended use."

However, the specific "predefined acceptance criteria" values are not explicitly detailed in the provided text for each test. We know the types of tests performed:

Note: The document only lists the types of tests performed and broadly states that the acceptance criteria were met. It does not provide the specific numerical acceptance thresholds (e.g., "bladder must withstand X mmHg," "leakage rate must be less than Y mL/min," "must withstand Z cycles").

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

• Sample Size: Not specified in the provided text. The document refers to "the following safety and performance tests were conducted," implying a sample of prototypes or production units were tested, but exact numbers are not given.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, however, the DVT garments are manufactured by B&J Manufacturing Ltd. in Shenzhen, China. Tests would likely have been conducted in a validation or manufacturing setting. The data is non-clinical/engineering test data.

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

• Not applicable in the context of an AI/ML device. This refers to engineering and material testing, where "ground truth" is established by manufacturing specifications, international standards, and test methodologies.

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

• Not applicable. This is for an AI/ML device where human readers adjudicate discrepancies. For physical device testing, results are typically objective measurements against predefined engineering specifications.

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. This is not an AI/ML device, so an MRMC study comparing human reader performance with and without AI assistance was not performed.

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

• No. This is not an AI/ML algorithm. The performance tests are on the physical device itself.

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

• Engineering Specifications and Standards: For physical devices like these DVT garments, the "ground truth" for performance is established through predefined engineering specifications, material properties, and relevant international or industry standards (e.g., for bursting strength, leak rates, cyclic fatigue). It's objective measurement against a benchmark.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no "training set."

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

• Not applicable. As above, no training set for an AI/ML algorithm is involved.

Ask a specific question about this device

The B&J Manufacturing Ltd. MHH800 and MHH800SQ Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) Compression Devices are intended to increase venous blood flow in at risk patients in order to help prevent deep vein thrombosis.

The Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) Pumps MHH800 and MHH800SQ are external pneumatic compression (EPC) devices that aid in the prevention of DVT from a potentially life threatening condition which can lead to pulmonary embolism. MHH800 and MHH800SQ are non-invasive mechanical prophylactic devices. The devices function as secondary pumps to propel venous blood for patients whose deep veins thrombosis must be prevented after surgeries in Orthopaedics etc. Additionally, the devices are reusable and can be used for more than one patient within its lifecycle.

Model variations are distinguished by characters. MHH800 is without SQ, so the device means an intermittent pneumatic compression pump. MHH800SQ is with SQ, so the device means a sequential pneumatic compression pump.

The two devices separately consist of an air pump and a soft pliable compression garment(s) for the foot, calf or thigh. For MHH800, the controller supplies compression on a preset timing cycle (12 seconds inflation and maintenance followed by 48 seconds of deflation) at a suggested pressure setting of 40 mmHg for the Leg and 120mmHg for the Foot. For MHH800SQ, the controller supplies compression on a preset timing cycle (12 seconds inflation followed by 48 seconds of deflation) at a suggested pressure setting, 45mmHg in the 1st chamber, 40 mmHg in the 2nd chamber and 30mmHg in the 3rd chamber for the Leg and 120mmHg for the Foot. The pressure in the garments is transferred to the extremity, augmenting venous blood flow when the leg is compressed, reducing stasis. This process also stimulates fibrinolysis; thus, reducing the risk of early clot formation.

The DVT pumps produce automatically timed cycles of compressed air. This compressed air forces blood out of the deep veins, helping to prevent slowed or stopped blood flow. Bursts of air are delivered to the specially designed garments wrapped around extremities. This air helps to move blood out of the deep veins and reduce the risk of developing DVT. Garments are lined with tricot fabric to help reduce heat and perspiration.

The provided text describes the 510(k) premarket notification for the B&J DVT Compression Devices MHH800/MHH800SQ. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than a de novo approval requiring extensive clinical efficacy studies with specific acceptance criteria for AI performance. As such, the information typically requested in questions related to AI-driven medical devices (e.g., sample sizes for test and training sets, number of experts for ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone performance with effect sizes) are not relevant to this submission.

However, based on the non-clinical testing section, we can infer some general "acceptance criteria" related to the device's functional and safety performance, and the "study" that proves these criteria were met is the non-clinical testing itself.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information, adapted to the context of this 510(k) submission:

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

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

• Sample Size: Not specified. For non-clinical, bench testing, this would typically refer to the number of units or components tested. This information is not provided in the summary.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. This is non-clinical testing, likely performed in a lab setting, possibly at the manufacturer's facility in China, or at a contracted testing lab. The data would be prospective as the tests are conducted specifically for the submission.

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. This device is a DVT compression pump, a hardware device, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool. "Ground truth" in the context of expert review for medical image analysis is not relevant here. The ground truth for performance tests is established by calibrated measuring equipment and established test protocols.

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

• Not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for expert consensus in clinical studies, particularly for AI evaluations. This is a non-clinical, bench testing scenario.

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 is not applicable to this device. This device is a physical therapy device and does not involve human "readers" or AI assistance in the interpretation of medical data.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an algorithm-only device. Its performance is evaluated through direct physical measurements (pressure, cycle time) and material/electrical safety tests.

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

• The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests would be established by:
  • Calibrated Measurement Standards: For pressure accuracy, cycle time, etc., the "truth" is determined by measurements against known, calibrated equipment.
  • Industry Standards & Regulations: For biocompatibility, EMC, and electrical safety, the "truth" is adherence to established national and international standards (e.g., ISO, IEC).

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. (See #8)

In summary, the provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a Class II medical device, a DVT compression pump. The "acceptance criteria" and "study" proving they are met refer to a series of non-clinical, bench-top performance and safety tests conducted on the device, rather than clinical trials or AI performance evaluations commonly associated with the detailed questions on ground truth, expert review, and training/test sets. The conclusion states that these tests demonstrate the device meets predefined acceptance criteria and is substantially equivalent to a predicate device.

Ask a specific question about this device