Search Results

The Propaq LT 802 series monitors are highly portable devices intended to be used by clinicians and medically qualified personnel for single or multi-parameter vital signs monitoring of ambulatory and non-ambulatory neonate, pediatric and adult patients. These monitors are indicated for ECG, noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP), respiration and SpO2. The most likely locations for patients to be monitored by this device are hospital general medical, telemetry, and intermediate care floors, hospital emergency departments, transport, emergency medical services and other healthcare applications. The monitors may be used as standalone devices or as devices networked to an Acuity " central station through wireless communication over Welch Allyn's FlexNet™ network.

This device is available for sale only upon the order of a physician or licensed health care professional.

The Propaq LT 802 Series of monitors are small, lightweight patient monitoring devices intended to be used by clinicians and medically qualified personnel for monitoring of noninvasive Interious bo adou by cirite, ECG, noninvasive functional oxygen saturation of arteriolar hemoglobin (SpO2) in ambulatory, non-ambulatory and transport environments

This document is a 510(k) summary for the Welch Allyn Propaq LT 802 Series vital signs monitor. It describes the device, its intended use, and provides a statement of its substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, it does not contain the detailed performance study results, acceptance criteria, or ground truth information typical for an AI/ML device submission.

Therefore, I cannot fully complete the requested table and sections based on the provided text.

Here's what I can infer and what is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Missing Information:

• Specific numerical acceptance criteria for each vital sign parameter (ECG, NIBP, Respiration, SpO2).
• Quantified performance results (e.g., mean absolute difference for NIBP, accuracy percentages for heart rate, SpO2 accuracy over specific ranges).

Study Related Information (Based on what can be inferred/is missing):

• Study That Proves the Device Meets Acceptance Criteria: The document mentions that the device "will be tested in accordance with the [test methods mentioned elsewhere in the submission] using production equivalent units prior to release to market." This indicates that verification and validation testing was planned or executed, but the details of these studies are not present in this summary. The summary focuses on regulatory compliance and substantial equivalence rather than detailed performance study reports.

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

  • Not specified in the document. The document does not provide details on specific test sets, sample sizes, or data provenance.

• 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 specified. For a vital signs monitor, ground truth is typically established by reference devices (e.g., a highly accurate NIBP simulator, a SpO2 simulator, or a known ECG waveform generator) rather than expert consensus on medical images or diagnoses. The document does not mention experts for ground truth establishment.

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

  • Not applicable/Not specified. Adjudication methods are typically used in studies involving subjective interpretation (e.g., image reading). For vital sign measurements, accuracy is usually determined against a validated reference.

• 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 a vital signs monitor, not an AI-powered diagnostic device. MRMC studies are not relevant in this context.

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

  • Yes, implicitly. The device itself is a standalone vital signs monitor. Its performance would be evaluated as an algorithm/device-only performance against reference standards. This is the primary mode of evaluation for such devices.

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

  • Likely a combination of physical simulators and clinical studies against reference devices. While not explicitly stated, for vital signs monitors, ground truth typically comes from:
    • For NIBP: Cuff inflation measurements against a reference manometer or invasive arterial pressure measurements.
    • For ECG: Standardized ECG waveforms, or simultaneous recordings with a highly accurate reference ECG device.
    • For SpO2: Controlled hypoxia studies against a CO-oximeter, or testing with calibrated SpO2 simulators.
  • The document mentions "production equivalent units," implying testing against established standards.

• 8. The sample size for the training set:

  • Not applicable/Not specified. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. The device's algorithms for processing vital signs are likely based on established physiological principles and signal processing, not statistical learning from a large training dataset.

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

  • Not applicable/Not specified. As it's not an AI/ML device relying on a training set, this question is not relevant.

Summary of Device and Regulatory Context:

This 510(k) summary is for a traditional medical device (vital signs monitor). The regulatory pathway focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to existing legally marketed predicate devices. This typically involves showing that the new device has the same intended use, similar technological characteristics, and raises no new questions of safety and effectiveness compared to the predicate. The performance data, while crucial for the submission, is usually summarized or referenced rather than detailed in the public 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

The VSM series of monitors are intended to be used by clinicians and medically qualified personnel for monitoring of noninvasive blood pressure, pulse rate, body temperature. noninvasive functional oxygen saturation of arteriolar hemoglobin (SpO2), and body temperature in normal and axillary modes of neonatal, pediatric and adult patients.

The most likely locations for patients to be monitored are general med/surg, floors, general hospital and alternate care environments. This device is available for sale only upon the order of a physician or licensed health care professional.

The model 53000 Series of monitors are intended to be used by clinicians and medically qualified personnel for monitoring of noninvasive blood pressure, pulse rate, body temperature, noninvasive functional oxygen saturation of arteriolar hemoglobin (SpOz), and body temperature in normal and axillary modes of neonatal, pediatric and adult patients.

The most likely locations for patients to be monitored are general med/surg. floors, general hospital and alternate care environments. This device is available for sale only upon the order of a physician or licensed health care professional.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device cleared through substantial equivalence, not a detailed study report with specific acceptance criteria and performance metrics. Therefore, much of the requested information (such as specific performance criteria, sample sizes for test and training sets, expert qualifications, and adjudication methods) is not explicitly stated in this document.

However, based on the available text, here's what can be extracted and what cannot:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This information is not explicitly provided in the 510(k) summary. The document states that the device "will be tested in accordance with the Test Plan / Report, #831-0719-00, and Clinical Validation Report #831-0752-00 included with the submission," but the content of these reports, including specific acceptance criteria and performance data, is not summarized here. Instead, it relies on substantial equivalence to predicate devices, implying that its performance should be comparable.

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

This information is not explicitly provided. The document mentions a "Clinical Validation Report #831-0752-00," which would contain this data, but the summary does not detail it.

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

This information is not explicitly provided.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not explicitly provided.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, and the effect size

This information is not explicitly provided. The document focuses on substantial equivalence based on technical specifications and performance compared to predicate devices, not on a comparative study with human readers for improved effectiveness.

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

This information is not explicitly provided. Given the device is a vital signs monitor, its core function is to produce readings directly, which implies a standalone performance would be inherent. However, specific details about such testing are not in this summary.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

This information is not explicitly provided. For vital signs monitors, ground truth would typically come from reference standards for each measurement (e.g., arterial line measurements for NIBP, co-oximetry for SpO2, calibrated thermometers for temperature), but this is not detailed in the summary.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable/provided. This device is a vital signs monitor that likely uses established algorithms and hardware for measurement, not a machine learning or AI-based device requiring a "training set" in the typical sense.

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

This information is not applicable/provided for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device