Search Results

The F&P 950 Respiratory Humidifier is intended to provide heat and humidity to respiratory gases delivered to patients. It is for use in a hospital or long-term care facility by a health professional.

F&P 950 Breathing Circuit Kits: 950A80J, 950A81J, 950A82J, 950A61J, 950A61J, 950A40J, AA451SU
The breathing set is an accessory to the F&P 950 Respiratory Humidifier. It is intended for delivery of heated humidified respiratory gases to adult, adolescent and child patients, within the limits of its stated technical specifications.

F&P 950 Breathing Circuit Kits: 950P81J, 950P40J
The breathing set is an accessory to the F&P 950 Respiratory Humidifier. It is intended for delivery of heated humidified respiratory gases to neonatal, infant, child and adolescent patients of its stated technical specifications.

F&P 950 Breathing Circuit Kits: 950N80J, 950N81J, 950N61J, 950N40J
The breathing set is an accessory to the F&P 950 Respiratory Humidifier. It is intended for delivery of heated humidified respiratory gases to neonatal, infant and child patients, within the limits of its stated technical specifications.

The F&P 950 Respiratory Humidifier is designed to warm and humidify air after it leaves a commercially available flow source and to maintain the air in a warmed and humidified condition to the point of delivery into the patient via heated tubing.

The F&P 950 Respiratory Humidifier is made up of a heaterbase, sensor cartridge and expiratory heater wire adapter with breathing circuit kits to support the use with adult, pediatric and neonatal patients. Breathing circuit kits enable the use of the F&P 950 Respiratory Humidifier with clinical procedures such as invasive ventilation and nasal high flow.

The device is a programmable electrical medical device that uses sensors throughout the system to humidify the gas. Gas travels through the chamber where it is humidity is requlated through monitoring the gas temperature exiting the chamber to achieve the target humidity level. The gas is then transported to the patient through a heated delivery tube. The gas temperature exiting the heated delivery tube is monitored to minimize the formation of condensate.

The document is a 510(k) Summary for the F&P 950 Respiratory Humidifier and its accessory breathing circuit kits. It outlines the device's indications for use and compares its technological characteristics to a primary predicate device (F&P MR850 Respiratory Humidifier) and several secondary predicate devices for the various breathing circuit kits. The summary also details the non-clinical tests performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Here's the requested information based on the provided text, focusing on acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

   Acceptance Criteria	Reported Device Performance
   Delivered humidity level (Bypassed airway)	>33mg/L for flow 12mg/L for flow

Ask a specific question about this device

The V60 ventilator is an assist ventilator and is intended to augment patient breathing. It is intended for spontaneously breathing individuals who require mechanical ventilation: patients with spontaneous respiratory failure, chronic respiratory insufficiency, or obstructive sleep apnea in a hospital or other institutional settings under the direction of a physician.

The Ventilator is intended to support pediatric patients weighing 20kg (44 lbs) or greater to adult patients. It is also intended for intubated patients meeting the same selection criteria as the noninvasive applications. The Ventilator is intended to be used by qualified medical professionals, such as physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists.

The ventilator is intended to be used only with various combinations of Respironics recommended patient circuits, interfaces (masks), humidifiers and other accessories.

The V60™ ventilator is a microprocessor controlled positive pressure ventilatory assist system incorporating a user interface with multifunction keys, real-time graphic displays, and integral patient and system alarms. The ventilator provides noninvasive and invasive ventilatory support for spontaneously breathing adult and pediatric patients.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the Respironics V60 Ventilator. The summary states that "Bench performance testing was performed comparing the new V60 and the predicate devices, and was found to be substantially equivalent." and "Performance testing and human factors testing demonstrate that the device is as safe, as effective and performs as well as or better than the predicate device."

However, the document does not provide specific acceptance criteria, reported device performance metrics, detailed study designs, sample sizes, information on ground truth establishment, or any details about multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer most of the questions based on the provided text. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through general performance and human factors testing, rather than presenting a detailed clinical study with quantitative acceptance criteria.

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)

The document mentions "Bench performance testing" and "human factors testing" but does not specify sample sizes for any test sets, nor does it provide details about data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective nature).

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 specified in the provided text. The document does not describe the establishment of a "ground truth" using experts for the performance testing.

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

Not specified in the provided text.

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 MRMC study is mentioned. The device is a ventilator, and the testing described is performance and human factors testing of the device itself, not a study evaluating human reader performance with or without AI assistance.

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

This question is not applicable in the context of a ventilator. The described "Performance testing" is inherently standalone in the sense that it tests the device's functionality.

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

The concept of "ground truth" as typically defined for diagnostic AI studies using expert consensus or pathology is not applicable to the performance testing of a ventilator as described in this document. The "ground truth" for a ventilator's performance would be engineering specifications and established physiological parameters it is designed to achieve.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. The document describes a medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. The document describes a medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The BiPAP Focus ventilator is a non-invasive, pressure support ventilator used to augment the breathing of patients suffering from acute or chronic respiratory insufficiency, or respiratory failure, or to maintain airway patency and provide ventilatory support to patients who experience obstructive sleep apnea. It is not intended to provide the total ventilatory requirements of the patient.

The BiPAP Focus is a non-invasive ventilator which has two (2) ventilation modes:

• Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) which provides a single level of positive pressure to the patient
• Spontaneous/Timed (S/T) which provides two levels of positive pressure (one during inspiration - IpAp and one during expiration - EvAp) and delivers timed breaths if the patient does not initiate a breath.

I am sorry, but based on the provided text, I cannot describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them. The document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called "BiPAP Focus." It details the regulatory approval process, classification, and a summary of the device and its intended use, as well as a comparison to predicate devices.

However, it does not contain any information about specific acceptance criteria (performance metrics with thresholds) or the results of any study (clinical or technical) that would demonstrate the device meets such criteria. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously approved devices, rather than presenting a performance study against specific acceptance metrics.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
2. Sample sizes, data provenance.
3. Number and qualifications of experts for ground truth.
4. Adjudication method.
5. MRMC comparative effectiveness study or human reader improvement effect size.
6. Standalone performance study.
7. Type of ground truth used.
8. Training set sample size.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

Nasal-Aire Critical Care ventilator interface is intended for use with a CPAP or Bi-Level device to provide noninvasive ventilation in adult patients for the treatment of respiratory insufficiencies or obstructive sleep apnea. This single use disposable interface is intended for hospital settings.

Nasal-Aire Criticial Care is ventilator interface accessory intended for use with a CPAP or Bi-Level device to provide noninvasive ventilation in adult patients for the treatment of respiratory insufficiencies or obstructive sleep apnea. This single use disposable interface is intended for hospital settings.

Nasal-Aire Critical Care consists of a soft nosepiece with two exhaust ports and two soft nasal cannula for fitting into the nasal openings. Connected on each side of the nosepiece is a length of tubing. The two lengths of tubing are joined at the opposite ends by a "Y"-shaped coupling, forming a loop with the nosepiece at one end and the "Y" coupling at the other. At the base of the "Y" coupling is a port for connection of the Nasal-Aire Critical Care to a positive pressure ventilation device. The Nasal-Aire Critical Care is compatible with any positive pressure ventilator containing a 22mm connection. Nasal-Aire Critical Care will be offered in various sizes designed for a comfortable and compliant fit for a wide variety of nare sizes.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Nasal-Aire Critical Care device. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than providing extensive clinical study data with acceptance criteria or performance metrics directly comparable to what is typically found in AI/ML device studies.

Therefore, the requested information, specifically regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria (especially in the context of an AI/ML device study), is largely not present in this regulatory document. This document outlines functional equivalence to existing devices through comparison of attributes.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, highlighting what is (and isn't) available:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
   The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" for performance metrics in the way one would see for an AI/ML diagnostic or prognostic device (e.g., target sensitivity, specificity). Instead, it relies on a comparison of attributes of the "Nasal-Aire Critical Care (Subject device)" against several "Predicate devices" to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

   The "performance" here is described in terms of functional attributes and intended use. The table below summarizes the comparison, which serves as the basis for demonstrating that the device is "as safe and effective as the predicate devices."

   | Attribute | Nasal-Aire Critical Care
   (Subject device) | Predicate Devices (Composite from listed predicates) |
   | :-------------------------------------------------------- | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
   | Intended Use | Intended for use with CPAP or Bi-Level device to provide noninvasive ventilation for the treatment of respiratory insufficiencies or obstructive sleep apnea. | Similar intended uses, including non-invasive treatment for respiratory insufficiency and/or obstructive sleep apnea with CPAP/bi-level therapy. |
   | Intended Environment | Hospital/Institutional Use: Yes | Hospital/Institutional Use: Yes |
   | Offered in Various sizes | Yes | Yes (for interfaces) |
   | Intended for Single Patient Use | Yes | Yes (for interfaces, some predicates indicated "No, multiple patient" for full mask series, but the Nasal-Aire is single-use) |
   | Provided Non-Sterile | Yes | Yes (for interfaces) |
   | Compatible with 22mm ventilator connection | Yes | Yes |
   | Treatment delivered through Nasal Passages | Yes | Yes (for interfaces; one predicate mentions "Yes and mouth") |
   | Pressure delivery | 3-35 cm H2O: Yes | 3-35 cm H2O: Yes |
   | Allows for pressure monitoring | Yes | Yes |
   | Intended Population | Adult | Adult |
   | Patient Contact Material | Silicone | Silicone |
   | Interface: Tubing Length | 7" | Varies (15/18" for one predicate, unknown for others; 7" is within reasonable range for such a device compared to longer ventilator tubing) |
   | Latex Free | Yes | Yes (where specified) |

   Acceptance Criteria (Implied): The implied acceptance criteria are the attributes and performance characteristics of the predicate devices. The "study" (or rather, the justification for substantial equivalence) involved demonstrating that the Nasal-Aire Critical Care met or was comparable to these attributes.

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
   This information is not provided in the 510(k) summary. Given that this is a physical medical device (ventilator interface) and not an AI/ML software device, the concept of "test set" in the context of data validation is not applicable in the way it would be for AI/ML. The "study" mentioned ("Biocompatability requirements and functional testing") would involve laboratory tests and potentially limited human factor testing, but details on sample sizes or data provenance are not included in this summary.

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)
   This information is not provided and is not typically relevant for a 510(k) submission for a physical device like a ventilator interface. "Ground truth" in the context of expert consensus is specific to diagnostic AI/ML algorithms, not general medical devices. Functional testing would rely on engineering standards and measurement accuracy, not expert consensus on interpretations.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
   This information is not provided and is not relevant for this type of device submission. Adjudication methods are specific to processes involving human interpretation outcomes for establishing ground truth, typically in AI/ML validation.

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
   This information is not provided. MRMC studies are specific to evaluating AI/ML systems that assist human readers in tasks like image interpretation. This device is a physical ventilator interface, not an AI/ML assistant, so such a study would not apply.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
   This information is not provided. This question is specific to AI/ML algorithms and is not applicable to a physical medical device like the Nasal-Aire Critical Care.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
   For the functional and biocompatibility testing mentioned, the "ground truth" would be established by scientific and engineering standards, not expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the sense used for AI/ML or clinical trials. For instance, biocompatibility testing would adhere to ISO standards, and functional testing would involve measuring parameters against predefined specifications (e.g., pressure delivery, connection compatibility). The document states "Biocompatability requirements and functional testing relative to the intended use of the Nasal-Aire Critical Care have been satisfactorily completed," implying compliance with relevant standards.

8. The sample size for the training set
   This information is not provided and is not applicable. There is no "training set" for a physical device in the way there is for an AI/ML algorithm.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
   This information is not provided and is not applicable for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device