Search Results

The OxyMinder Pro is an oxygen monitor with integrated pressure monitoring intended for continuous monitoring of the concentration of oxygen and pressure being delivered to patients ranging from newborns to adults. This device can be used in the hospital and subacute settings. The monitor is not intended as a life supporting device or for diagnostics.

The OxyMinder Pro is an oxygen and pressure monitor capable of measuring the oxygen concentration from 18 to 100% (cleared under K213948) and pressure from 0 to 60 cmH2O (subject of this submission) that for convenience can be mechanically mounted on to the cleared blender.

The pressure is measured via a disposable pressure tubing that connects from the monitor to an adapter placed in the patient circuit. This sampling line is identical to that cleared in predicate Maxtec K221734. We have only updated the labeling to reflect the name of the sponsor.

As indicated the oxygen monitoring portion has been previously cleared, K213948. It utilizes a cleared oxygen sensor which outputs a voltage to determine the concentration of oxygen. The OxyMinder Pro calibrates at ambient air (21%) and 100% oxygen. The OxyMinder Pro is software controlled. Again, the oxygen monitoring feature and functions are unchanged and previously cleared under reference K213948.

The new pressure monitoring feature utilizes a pressure sensor which measures the pressure within a patient circuit. There is a disposable pressure tubing that connects between the patient circuit and the pressure sensor.

This document, K251245, describes the 510(k) clearance for the OxyMinder Pro, an oxygen and pressure monitor. It uses the Maxtec MaxO2ME+p (K221734) as its predicate device for the combined oxygen and pressure monitoring features, and the Bio-Med Devices OxyMinder (K213948) as a reference for the oxygen monitoring aspects, which were previously cleared.

The core of the submission focuses on the new pressure monitoring feature, as the oxygen monitoring component is largely based on a previously cleared device (OxyMinder, K213948). The acceptance criteria and testing detailed largely pertain to the performance of the device's measurement capabilities and adherence to relevant safety and performance standards.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided document describes the performance specifications of the OxyMinder Pro and compares them to the predicate and reference devices. These specifications serve as the acceptance criteria for the device's functionality. The "Reported Device Performance" is implied by the similarity claims and the statement that "The test results met the applicable standards".

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

The document states that "Bench testing was performed" and lists various types of tests (Shelf-life / Aging, Software Verification and Validation, Safety and ElectroMagnetic Compatibility, etc.). It claims that "The test results met the applicable standards". However, the sample size for the test set is not explicitly stated.

The data provenance is not explicitly mentioned as country of origin, nor is it specified if the testing was retrospective or prospective. Given it's bench testing for a device clearance, it is implicitly prospective testing within a laboratory/manufacturing environment.

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

This type of information (number of experts, their qualifications, and their role in establishing ground truth) is not applicable or not provided for this specific 510(k) submission. Medical device performance testing, especially for devices like oxygen and pressure monitors, relies on calibrated instruments and established physical and electrical standards to determine "ground truth" (e.g., a calibrated gas mixture for oxygen concentration, a pressure calibrator for pressure measurements), not human expert consensus.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The concept of an adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1 used in clinical trials or image interpretation studies) is not applicable here. The "ground truth" for the device's performance (e.g., accuracy of oxygen or pressure readings) is established through comparison to validated and calibrated measurement standards, not through human interpretation that would require adjudication.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

An MRMC study is not applicable and was not done for the OxyMinder Pro. MRMC studies are typically used to assess human reader performance, often in diagnostic imaging, with and without AI assistance. The OxyMinder Pro is a direct measurement device; its performance is based on its physical and electrical accuracy, not on human interpretation or an AI algorithm assisting human interpretation.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study

The OxyMinder Pro itself is a standalone device. Its performance, as described by its measurement accuracy, resolution, response time, etc., is its standalone performance without a human-in-the-loop influencing the measurement itself. The device is intended to present data to a human for monitoring, but its core function (measurement) is standalone. The testing conducted, as per the "Non-Clinical Testing Summary," assesses the device's inherent performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the performance testing is established using calibrated instruments and reference standards. For oxygen measurements, this would involve calibrated gas mixtures with known oxygen concentrations. For pressure measurements, this would involve calibrated pressure sources or transducers with known pressure values. It is based on physical and engineering measurements against established standards, not expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

The OxyMinder Pro uses an oxygen sensor (galvanic cell) and a pressure transducer. While it is "software controlled," it does not appear to employ machine learning or AI algorithms that would require a "training set" in the conventional sense (i.e., a dataset used to train a model). The software is likely for control, data processing, display, and alarm functions, using fixed algorithms based on physical principles, not learning from data. Therefore, a training set sample size is not applicable.

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

As there is no indication of a training set in the context of machine learning, this question is not applicable. The device's operation is based on pre-programmed algorithms and calibrated sensor outputs.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Maxtec MaxBlend 2+p is intended to provide a continuous air/oxygen gas mixture and to continuously monitor the concentration of oxygen and pressure being delivered to infant, pediatric, and adult patients. It is a restricted medical device intended for use by qualified, trained personnel, under the direction of a physician, in professional healthcare settings, i.e., hospital, subacute, and nursing-care facilities where the delivery and monitoring of air/oxygen mixtures is required. This is not intended as a life-supporting device or life sustaining device.

The Maxtec MaxBlend 2+p is an oxygen delivery device which incorporates an air/oxygen blender, battery powered oxygen and pressure monitor, and an adjustable flowmeter, all in a single assembly. The integral air/oxygen blender provides precise mixing of medical grade air and oxygen. The flowmeter provides control of the flow rate delivered. The oxygen monitor measures the oxygen concentration from the blender's gas flow, displays these measured concentrations, and provides user selectable high and low oxygen alarms. It also allows the user to monitor pressure simultaneously using adjustable high and low alarm limits.

The document describes the Maxtec MaxBlend 2+p, a medical device combining an air/oxygen blender, oxygen monitor, pressure monitor, and flowmeter. The 510(k) submission seeks substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices (Maxtec MaxBlend 2 - K161718 and MaxO2ME+p - K221734), particularly highlighting the addition of a pressure monitoring feature.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for several performance aspects are implicitly derived from the comparative tables (Table 1 and 2) where the subject device's specifications are listed and compared to the predicate devices. The "Reported Device Performance" for the subject device is simply its stated characteristics, which are claimed to meet or be identical to the predicate device specifications, thereby meeting the acceptance criteria based on substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device

Indications for Use for CARESCAPE Canvas 1000:

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 is a multi-parameter patient monitor intended for use in multiple areas within a professional healthcare facility.

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 is intended for use on adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients one patient at a time.

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 is indicated for monitoring of:

· hemodynamic (including ECG, ST segment, arrhythmia detection, ECG diagnostic analysis and measurement, invasive pressure, non-invasive blood pressure, pulse oximetry, regional oxygen saturation, total hemoglobin concentration, cardiac output (thermodilution and pulse contour), temperature, mixed venous oxygen saturation, and central venous oxygen saturation),

· respiratory (impedance respiration, airway gases (CO2, O2, N2O, and anesthetic agents), spirometry, gas exchange), and

· neurophysiological status (including electroencephalography, Entropy, Bispectral Index (BIS), and neuromuscular transmission).

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 is able to detect and generate alarms for ECG arrhythmias: atrial fibrillation, accelerated ventricular rhythm, asystole, bigeminy, bradycardia, ventricular couplet, irregular, missing beat, multifocal premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), pause, R on T, supra ventricular tachycardia, trigeminy, ventricular bradycardia, ventricular fibrillation/ ventricular tachycardia, ventricular tachycardia, and VT>2. CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 also shows alarms from other ECG sources.

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 also provides other alarms, trends, snapshots and events, and calculations and can be connected to displays, printers and recording devices.

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 can interface to other devices. It can also be connected to other monitors for remote viewing and to data management software devices via a network.

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 is intended for use under the direct supervision of a licensed healthcare practitioner, or by personnel trained in proper use of the equipment in a professional healthcare facility.

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 is not intended for use in an MRI environment.

Indications for Use for CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display:

CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display is a multi-parameter patient monitor intended for use in multiple areas within a professional healthcare facility.

CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display is intended for use on adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients one patient at a time.

CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display is indicated for monitoring of:

· hemodynamic (including ECG, ST segment, arrhythmia detection, ECG diagnostic analysis and measurement, invasive pressure, non-invasive blood pressure, pulse oximetry, regional oxygen saturation, total hemoglobin concentration, cardiac output (thermodilution), and temperature, and · respiratory (impedance respiration, airway gases (CO2)

CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display is able to detect and generate alarms for ECG arrhythmias: atrial fibrillation, accelerated ventricular rhythm, asystole, bigeminy, bradycardia, ventricular couplet, irregular, missing beat, multifocal premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), pause, R on T, supra ventricular tachycardia, trigeminy, ventricular bradycardia, ventricular fibrillation/ ventricular tachycardia, ventricular tachycardia, and VT>2. CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display also shows alarms from other ECG sources.

CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display also provides other alarms, trends, snapshots and events. CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display can use CARESCAPE ONE or CARESCAPE Patient Data Module (PDM) as patient data acquisition devices. It can also be connected to other monitors for remote viewing and to data management software devices via a network.

CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display is intended for use under the direct supervision of a licensed healthcare practitioner, or by personnel trained in proper use of the equipment in a professional healthcare facility.

CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display is not intended for use in an MRI environment.

Indications for Use for CARESCAPE Canvas D19:

CARESCAPE Canvas D19 is intended for use as a secondary display with a compatible host device. It is intended for displaying measurement and parametric data from the host device and providing visual and audible alarms generated by the host device.

CARESCAPE Canvas D19 enables controlling the host device, including starting and discharging a patient case, changing parametric measurement settings, changing alarm limits and disabling alarms.

Using CARESCAPE Canvas D19 with a compatible host device enables real-time multi-parameter patient monitoring and continuous evaluation of the patient's ventilation, oxygenation, hemodynamic, circulation, temperature, and neurophysiological status.

Indications for Use for F2 Frame; F2-01:

The F2 Frame, module frame with two slots, is intended to be used with compatible GE multiparameter patient monitors to interface with two single width parameter modules, CARESCAPE ONE with a slide mount, and recorder.

The F2 Frame is intended for use in multiple areas within a professional healthcare facility. The F2 Frame is intended for use under the direct supervision of a licensed healthcare practitioner, or by person trained in proper use of the equipment in a professional healthcare facility.

The F2 Frame is intended for use on adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients and on one patient at a time.

Hardware and software modifications carried out on the legally marketed predicate device CARESCAPE B850 V3.2, resulted in new products CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 and CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display, along with the CARESCAPE Canvas D19 and F2 Frame (F2-01) all of which are the subject of this submission.

CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 and CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display are new modular multi-parameter patient monitoring systems. In addition, the new devices CARESCAPE Canvas D19 and F2 Frame (F2-01) are a new secondary display and new module frame respectively.

The CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 and CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display patient monitors incorporates a 19-inch display with a capacitive touch screen and the screen content is user-configurable. They have an integrated alarm light and USB connectivity for other user input devices. The user interface is touchscreen-based and can be used also with a mouse and a keyboard or a remote controller. The system also includes the medical application software (CARESCAPE Software version 3.3). The CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 and CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display include features and subsystems that are optional or configurable.

The CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 and CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display are compatible with the CARESCAPE Patient Data Module and CARESCAPE ONE acquisition device via F0 docking station (cleared separately).

For the CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 patient monitor, the other type of acquisition modules, E-modules (cleared separately) can be chosen based on care requirements and patient needs. Interfacing subsystems that can be used to connect the E-modules to the CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 include a new two-slot parameter module F2 frame (F2-01), a five-slot parameter module F5 frame (F5-01), and a seven-slot parameter module F7 frame (F7-01).

The CARESCAPE Canvas 1000 can also be used together with the new secondary CARESCAPE Canvas D19 display. The CARESCAPE Canvas D19 display provides a capacitive touch screen, and the screen content is user configurable. The CARESCAPE Canvas D19 display integrates audible and visual alarms and provides USB connectivity for other user input devices.

Please note that the provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device and primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical bench testing and adherence to various standards. It explicitly states that clinical studies were not required to support substantial equivalence. Therefore, some of the requested information regarding clinical studies, human expert involvement, and ground truth establishment from patient data will likely not be present.

Based on the provided text, here's the information regarding acceptance criteria and device performance:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not present a formal table of specific, quantifiable acceptance criteria alongside reported performance data. Instead, it states that various tests were conducted to demonstrate that the design meets specifications and complies with consensus standards. The performance is generally reported as "meets the specifications," "meets the EMC requirements," "meets the electrical safety requirements," and "fulfilled through compliance."

However, we can infer some "acceptance criteria" based on the standards and tests mentioned:

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document implies that the "test set" for performance evaluation was the device itself and its components as described ("CARESCAPE Canvas 1000, CARESCAPE Canvas Smart Display, CARESCAPE Canvas D19 and F2 Frame (F2-01)").
  • For usability testing, "16 US Clinical, 16 US Technical and 15 US Cleaning users" were involved.
• Data Provenance: The testing described is non-clinical bench testing.
  • For usability testing, the users were located in the US.
  • No direct patient data or retrospective/prospective study data is mentioned beyond the device's inherent functional characteristics being tested according to standards.

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

• Number of Experts: Not applicable in the context of establishing "ground truth" for patient data, as no clinical studies with patient data requiring expert adjudication were conducted or reported to establish substantial equivalence.
• For usability testing, "16 US Clinical, 16 US Technical and 15 US Cleaning users" participated. Their specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience, types of healthcare professionals) are not detailed in this summary.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable, as no clinical studies with patient data requiring adjudication were conducted or reported.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs. Without AI Assistance

• No MRMC study was done, as the document explicitly states: "The subjects of this premarket submission... did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence." The device is a patient monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for image interpretation or similar.

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

• The performance evaluations mentioned (e.g., for general device functionality, electrical safety, EMC, specific parameter measurements like ECG/arrhythmia detection) represent the device's standalone performance in a bench setting, demonstrating its adherence to established standards and specifications. There is no separate "algorithm only" performance study reported distinctly from integrated device testing. The EK-Pro V14 algorithm, which is part of the device, is noted as "identical" to the predicate, implying its performance characteristics are maintained.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the non-clinical bench testing, the "ground truth" was established by conformance to internationally recognized performance and safety standards (e.g., IEC, ISO, AAMI/ANSI) and the engineering specifications of the device/predicate. These standards define the acceptable range of performance for various parameters.
• For usability testing, the "ground truth" was the successful completion of tasks and overall user feedback/satisfaction as assessed by human factors evaluation methods.
• No ground truth from expert consensus on patient data, pathology, or outcomes data was used, as clinical studies were not required.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This document describes a 510(k) submission for a patient monitor, not a machine learning or AI model trained on a dataset. The device contains "Platform Software that has been updated from version 3.2 to version 3.3," but this refers to traditional software development and not a machine learning model requiring a "training set" in the AI sense.

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

• Not applicable, as there is no mention of a "training set" in the context of machine learning. The software development likely followed conventional software engineering practices, with ground truth established through design specifications, requirements, and verification/validation testing.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MaxO2 ME+p is an oxygen monitor with integrated pressure monitoring intended for continuous monitoring of the concentration of oxygen and pressure being delivered to patients ranging from newborns to adults. It can be used in the hospital and sub-acute settings. The MaxO2 ME+p is not intended as a life-supporting device or life sustaining device.

The MaxO2 ME +p is a battery powered oxygen and pressure monitor in a single assembly. The oxygen monitor measures the oxygen concentration from a gas source, displays these measured concentrations, and provides user selectable high and low oxygen alarms. It also the user to monitor pressure simultaneously and provides user selectable high and low pressure alarms.

The MaxO2 ME+p device is an oxygen monitor with integrated pressure monitoring. The acceptance criteria and supporting study details are as follows:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The provided document compares the MaxO2 ME+p (proposed device) to two predicate devices: Maxtec - MaxO2 ME (K153659) for oxygen monitoring and Caradyne - Criterion 40 (K992101) for pressure monitoring.

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

• The document does not specify a sample size for a test set in terms of clinical data or patient samples.
• The study primarily relies on non-clinical testing (bench testing and adherence to standards) to demonstrate performance.
• No human clinical testing or animal testing was performed.
• The data provenance is not applicable as it's not a study involving patient data.

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

• This information is not provided in the document. Given that the testing was non-clinical (adherence to standards and bench testing), the "ground truth" would be established by the requirements of those standards and the accuracy of reference measurement equipment. Experts involved would be in engineering, quality assurance, and regulatory affairs, but specific numbers and qualifications are not detailed.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• An adjudication method is not applicable as there was no study involving human readers or interpretation of results that would require consensus among experts. The testing involved verifying the device's performance against defined technical specifications and industry standards.

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 comparative effectiveness study was done. This device is an oxygen and pressure monitor, not an AI-powered diagnostic imaging device or a system designed to assist human readers in interpretation. Therefore, this type of study is not relevant to the MaxO2 ME+p.

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

• This question is not directly applicable in the context of this device. The MaxO2 ME+p is a standalone physical device (monitor) that measures oxygen concentration and pressure. Its performance is evaluated through non-clinical bench testing against established standards and specifications, not through an "algorithm only" performance study in the way it might be for a diagnostic AI. The device's functioning is its standalone performance without human input beyond its operation.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• The "ground truth" for the performance evaluation was established by technical specifications, measurements from calibrated reference equipment, and compliance with recognized industry standards. These include:
  • AAMI ANSI ES 60601-1: Medical electrical equipment safety and essential performance.
  • IEC 60601-1-2: Electromagnetic Disturbances.
  • AIM Standard 7351731: Electromagnetic Immunity Test for Exposure to Radio Frequency Identification Readers.
  • IEC 60601-1-8: Alarm systems.
  • ISO 80601-2-55: Respiratory gas monitors.
  • ISO 10993-5, -10, -11, -18: Biocompatibility.
  • ISO 18562-2, -3: Particulate material and VOCs.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• This information is not applicable. This device is a hardware monitor, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a training set of data.

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

• This information is not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CARESCAPE B650 is a multi-parameter patient monitor intended for use in multiple areas and intrahospital transport within a professional healthcare facility.

The CARESCAPE B650 is intended for use on adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients and on one patient at a time. The CARESCAPE B650 is indicated for monitoring of:

· hemodynamic (including ECG, ST segment, arrhythmia detection, ECG diagnostic and measurement, invasive pressure, non-invasive blood pressure, pulse oximetry, regional oxygen saturation, total hemoglobin concentration, cardiac output (thermodilution and pulse contour), temperature, mixed venous oxygen saturation, and central venous oxygen saturation),

· respiratory (impedance respiration, airway gases (CO2, O2, N2O, and anesthetic agents), spirometry, gas exchange), and

· neurophysiological status (including electroencephalography, Entropy, Bispectral Index (BIS), and neuromuscular transmission).

The CARESCAPE B650 can be a stand-alone monitor or interfaced to other devices. It can also be connected to other monitors for remote viewing and to data management software devices via a network.

The CARESCAPE B650 is able to detect and generate alarms for ECG arrhythmias: atrial fibrillation, accelerated ventricular rhythm, asystole, bigeminy, bradycardia, ventricular couplet, missing beat, multifocal premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), pause, R on T, supra ventricular tachycardia, trigeminy, ventricular bradycardia, ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia, ventricular tachycardia, and VT>2. The CARESCAPE B650 also shows alarms from other ECG sources.

The CARESCAPE B650 also provides other alarms, trends, snapshots and calculations, and can be connected to displays, printers and recording devices.

The CARESCAPE B650 is intended for use under the direct supervision of a licensed healthcare practitioner, or by personnel trained in proper use of the equipment in a professional healthcare facility.

Contraindications for using CARESCAPE B650:

The CARESCAPE B650 is not intended for use in a controlled MR environment.

CARESCAPE B650 is a new version of a portable multi-parameter patient monitoring system. The CARESCAPE B650 includes the monitor with built-in CPU, power unit, a 15 inch touch display, the CARESCAPE Software and the battery. CARESCAPE B650 is equipped with two module slots where patient data acquisition modules (E-Module type) can be connected to perform patient monitoring. CARESCAPE B650 is equipped with the ePort interface that supports use of PDM or CARESCAPE ONE patient data acquisition devices. In addition to the ePort interface the PDM module can be also connected directly to the CARESCAPE B650 via special slide mount connector which is in the back of the monitor. The CARESCAPE B650 includes features and subsystems that are optional or configurable.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the GE Healthcare CARESCAPE B650 patient monitor. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than presenting a detailed study of acceptance criteria and device performance. Therefore, the information requested in your prompt is largely not available within this document.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be extracted based on the provided text:

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

The document does not provide a specific table of acceptance criteria with corresponding reported device performance values in the format you requested. It states: "Bench testing related to software, hardware and performance including applicable consensus standards was conducted on the CARESCAPE B650, demonstrating the design meets the specifications." This is a general statement about testing without specific criteria or performance metrics.

2. Sample size 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 document. The document mentions "Bench testing related to software, hardware and performance," but does not detail the nature of the test sets, their size, or their origin.

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. As this is a 510(k) submission for a patient monitor, the primary evidence relies on engineering and performance testing against established standards, not typically on expert consensus for "ground truth" in the way it might be for an AI diagnostic device.

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

This information is not provided. Adjudication methods are typically relevant for studies involving human interpretation or subjective assessments, which are not detailed here.

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

A multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done, and it is not applicable to this submission. The device is a patient monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would involve human readers. The document explicitly states: "The subject of this premarket submission, CARESCAPE B650 did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence."

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

The document describes "Bench testing related to software, hardware and performance" and "Software testing included software design, development, verification, validation and traceability." This implies standalone testing of the device's algorithms and functionality. However, specific details about the results of such standalone performance are not provided in a quantifiable manner against acceptance criteria.

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

Given the nature of the device (a multi-parameter patient monitor), "ground truth" would likely be established through:

• Reference measurement devices/standards: For parameters like ECG, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, temperature, etc., the device's measurements would be compared against validated reference devices or established physical standards.
• Simulated physiological signals: For arrhythmia detection, the device would be tested with simulated ECG waveforms containing known arrhythmias.

However, the specific types of "ground truth" used are not explicitly elaborated beyond "bench testing" and "applicable consensus standards."

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not provided and is generally not applicable in the context of a patient monitor's 510(k) submission unless specific machine learning algorithms requiring training data were a novel aspect of the submission, which is not indicated here. The document describes modifications to software and hardware, implying updates to existing functionalities rather than the introduction of new, data-trained AI models.

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

This information is not provided and is not applicable for the reasons stated in point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CARESCAPE B850 is a multi-parameter patient monitor intended for use in multiple areas within a professional healthcare facility.

The CARESCAPE B850 is intended for use on adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients and on one patient at a time. The CARESCAPE B850 is indicated for monitoring of:

• · hemodynamic (including ECG, ST segment, arthythmia detection, ECG diagnostic analysis and measurement, invasive pressure, non-invasive blood pressure, pulse oximetry, regional oxygen saturation, total hemoglobin concentration, cardiac output (thermodilution and pulse contour), temperature, mixed venous oxygen saturation, and central venous oxygen saturation),
• · respiratory (impedance respiration, airway gases (CO2, O2, N2O, and anesthetic agents), spirometry, gas exchange), and
• · neurophysiological status (including electroencephalography, Entropy, Bispectral Index (BIS), and neuromuscular transmission).

The CARESCAPE B850 can be a stand-alone monitor or interfaced to other devices. It can also be connected to other monitors for remote viewing and to data management software devices via a network.

The CARESCAPE B850 is able to detect and generate alarms for ECG arrhythmias: atrial fibrillation, accelerated ventricular rhythm, asystole, bigeminy, bradycardia, ventricular couplet, missing beat, multifocal premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), pause, R on T, supra ventricular tachycardia, trigeminy, ventricular bradycardia, ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia, ventricular tachycardia, and VT>2. The CARESCAPE B850 also shows alarms from other ECG sources.

The CARESCAPE B850 also provides other alarms, trends, snapshots and calculations, and can be connected to displays, printers and recording devices.

The CARESCAPE B850 is intended for use under the direct supervision of a licensed healthcare practitioner, or by personnel trained in proper use of the equipment in a professional healthcare facility.

Contraindications for using the monitor

The CARESCAPE B850 is not intended for use in a controlled MR environment.

CARESCAPE B850 is a new version of a modular multi- parameter patient monitoring system. The monitor includes a separate 19-inch touchscreen display, the central processing unit (also called CPU), the CARESCAPE Software, and a module frame F5 or F7. CARESCAPE B850 is equipped with the ePort interface that supports use of PDM or CARESCAPE ONE patient data acquisition modules for patient monitoring. In addition, the F5 module frame has five module slots, and the F7 module frame has seven module slots where patient data acquisition modules (E-Module type), can be connected to perform patient monitoring. The CARESCAPE B850 includes features and subsystems that are optional or configurable.

This looks like a 510(k) summary for the GE Healthcare CARESCAPE B850 patient monitor. I will extract information related to the acceptance criteria and study that proves the device meets them.

Based on the provided text, the CARESCAPE B850 is a multi-parameter patient monitor. The 510(k) submission is for a new version with updated software and minor hardware modifications. The submission refers to a primary predicate device, also named CARESCAPE B850 (K191323), and additional predicate/reference devices for specific parameters (INVOS PM7100 and MASIMO RADICAL Y PULSE CO-OXIMETER).

The key takeaway is that the device did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence because it is a modified version of an already cleared device and incorporates previously cleared parameters. Therefore, the "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" primarily refers to non-clinical bench testing.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance metrics for the new CARESCAPE B850 compared to a specific threshold. Instead, it relies on the concept of substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

The "acceptance criteria" are implied to be that the performance of the new device is "as safe, as effective, and the performance to be substantially equivalent to the predicate device." The reported "device performance" is primarily that it passed various non-clinical tests.

Implied Acceptance Criteria (based on substantial equivalence concept):

Note: The document states that the fundamental function and operation of the proposed CARESCAPE B850 monitor are unchanged compared to its predicate (K191323), except for the addition of an E-musb Interface module and the capability to display previously cleared hemodynamic parameters from OEM devices (regional oxygen saturation and total hemoglobin concentration).

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated. The document refers to "bench testing related to software, hardware and performance." This typically involves testing prototypes or production units, but a "sample size" in the context of patient data is not applicable here as no clinical studies were performed for this submission.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable, as no external data (e.g., patient data from a specific country, retrospective or prospective) was used for this 510(k) submission to demonstrate substantial equivalence. The testing was internal bench testing.

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

• Number of Experts: Not applicable. For bench testing of hardware and software, "ground truth" is typically established by engineering specifications, validated test protocols, and adherence to consensus standards, rather than expert clinical consensus on patient data.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not applicable.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable. This concept applies to clinical studies where discrepancies in observations or diagnoses need to be resolved. For bench testing, test results are typically compared against predefined 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

• MRMC Study: No. The device is a multi-parameter patient monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would typically involve human readers. The new version mostly focuses on software updates, minor hardware changes, and display of previously cleared parameters from other OEM devices.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

• Standalone Performance: The core functionality of the device (e.g., ECG, arrhythmia detection, various physiological measurements) operates in a "standalone" fashion in that the algorithms process patient data collected by the sensors. The document doesn't detail specific "algorithm-only" performance metrics as would be seen for a novel AI algorithm. Instead, it relies on the previous clearance of the predicate device and the fact that the algorithms (like EK-Pro arrhythmia detection algorithm V14) are identical. The newly added parameters (regional oxygen saturation and total hemoglobin concentration) are sourced from OEM devices that would have their own standalone performance data from their original clearances.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Type of Ground Truth: For the non-clinical bench testing, the ground truth would be the engineering specifications of the device and adherence to relevant consensus standards (e.g., for electromagnetic compatibility, electrical safety, environmental performance). For the physiological parameters, the "ground truth" for the algorithms (e.g., arrhythmia detection) was established during the development and clearance of the predicate device (K191323) and the OEM devices for rSO2 and SpHb.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable. As this is not an AI/ML device that requires a distinct "training set" for model development for this 510(k) submission, this information is not relevant here. The update involves existing algorithms and integration of existing cleared parameters.

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

• How Ground Truth for Training Set Was Established: Not applicable, for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CARESCAPE B450 is a multi-parameter patient monitor intended for use in multiple areas and intrahospital transport within a professional healthcare facility.
The CARESCAPE B450 is intended for use on adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients and on one patient at a time. The CARESCAPE B450 is indicated for monitoring of:
· hemodynamic (including ECG, ST segment, arrhythmia detection, ECG diagnostic and measurement, invasive pressure, non-invasive blood pressure, pulse oximetry, regional oxygen saturation, total hemoglobin concentration, cardiac output (thermodilution and pulse contour), temperature, mixed venous oxygen saturation, and central venous oxygen saturation),
· respiratory (impedance respiration, airway gases (CO2, O2, N2O, and anesthetic agents), spirometry, gas exchange), and
· neurophysiological status (including electroencephalography, Entropy, Bispectral Index (BIS), and neuromuscular transmission).
The CARESCAPE B450 can be a stand-alone monitor or interfaced to other devices. It can also be connected to other monitors for remote viewing and to data management software devices via a network.
The CARESCAPE B450 is able to detect and generate alarms for ECG arrhythmias: atrial fibrillation, accelerated ventricular rhythm, asystole, bigeminy, bradycardia, ventricular couplet, missing beat, multifocal premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), pause, R on T, supra ventricular tachycardia, trigeminy, ventricular bradycardia, ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia, ventricular tachycardia, and VT>2. The CARESCAPE B450 also shows alarms from other ECG sources.
The CARESCAPE B450 also provides other alarms, trends, snapshots and calculations, and can be connected to displays, printers and recording devices.
The CARESCAPE B450 is intended for use under the direct supervision of a licensed healthcare practitioner, or by personnel trained in proper use of the equipment in a professional healthcare facility

CARESCAPE B450 is a new version of a portable multiparameter patient monitoring system. The CARESCAPE B450 includes the monitor itself with built-in CPU, power unit, a 12 inch touch display, the CARESCAPE Software and one or two batteries. CARESCAPE B450 is equipped with an ePort interface that supports use of PDM or CARESCAPE ONE patient data acquisition modules for patient monitoring. CARESCAPE B450 is also equipped with one module slot where patient data acquisition modules (E-Modules), can be connected to perform patient monitoring. The CARESCAPE B450 includes features and subsystems that are optional or configurable.

Based on the provided text, here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

The document describes the CARESCAPE B450, a multiparameter patient monitor. This submission is for a new version of the device, primarily focusing on updated software and minor hardware modifications.

The document does not contain details about specific acceptance criteria for performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy for arrhythmia detection) or a study proving the device meets those criteria with statistical significance. Instead, it primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K191249 CARESCAPE B450) and compliance with general safety and performance standards through non-clinical testing.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the available text:

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

   This information is not explicitly provided in the document. The submission aims to show that the new CARESCAPE B450, with its updated software and minor hardware, is "substantially equivalent" to its predicate device. This implies that its performance is expected to meet the same standards as the predicate, but specific performance metrics and acceptance thresholds for those metrics are not detailed.

2. Sample size 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. The document states that "Bench testing related to software, hardware and performance including applicable consensus standards was conducted on the CARESCAPE B450, demonstrating the design meets the specifications." It also notes that "The subject of this premarket submission, CARESCAPE B450 did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence." This indicates that the primary validation was through non-clinical bench testing, not through studies on patient data.

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. As clinical studies were not required and the validation was primarily non-clinical bench testing, the concept of "ground truth" derived from expert consensus on patient data (as would be typical for AI/ML performance studies) is not applicable or described in this document.

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

   This information is not provided. Since no clinical studies or evaluations of diagnostic performance against a "ground truth" established by experts on a test set are detailed, adjudication methods are not mentioned.

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 comparative effectiveness study was done or reported. The device is a patient monitor with arrhythmia detection, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers in the context of an MRMC study.

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

   The document states that "Bench testing related to software, hardware and performance... was conducted," implying that the device's inherent functional performance was tested. The phrase "algorithm only" isn't explicitly used, but the testing would effectively assess the device's standalone operation. However, no specific performance metrics (like those one would expect for an AI algorithm, e.g., sensitivity/specificity for specific arrhythmias) are reported. The device features "EK-Pro arrhythmia detection algorithm EK-Pro V14", and its performance is assumed to be equivalent to the predicate using the same algorithm version.

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

   For the non-clinical bench testing, the "ground truth" would likely be based on established engineering specifications, simulated physiological signals, and validated test protocols inherent to medical device performance testing, rather than expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data from human subjects. This type of detail is not further elaborated in the document.

8. The sample size for the training set

   This information is not provided. As the submission is for a new version of an existing device primarily involving software updates and minor hardware changes, and the algorithm (EK-Pro V14) itself is listed as "Identical" to the predicate, details about a training set for a new or significantly retrained algorithm are not discussed.

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

The CARESCAPE Respiratory Modules, (E-sCO, E-sCOV, E-sCAiO, E-sCAiOV, E-sCAiOVX, E-sCAiOVX, E-sCAiOE, E-sCAiOVE) are indicated for use with a host device for monitoring respiratory parameters (CO2, O2, N2O, anesthetic agents, anesthetic agent identification and respiratory rate) and ventilatory parameters (airway pressure, flow and volume) of adult, pediatric and neonatal patients and gas exchange parameters (VCO2, VO2) of adult and pediatric patients.

When monitoring neonatal or other patients that have high respiration rate or low tidal volume these modules shall be used within the limits of respiration rates and tidal volumes to ensure specified measurement accuracy.

These modules are intended for use by qualified medical personnel only.

The CARESCAPE Respiratory Modules E-sCO, E-sCOV, E-sCOVX, E-sCAiO, E-sCAiOV, E-sCAiOVX, E-sCAiOE, E-sCAiOVE and accessories measure respiratory parameters (concentrations of Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen, Nitrous Oxide and anesthetic agents in the patient's breath, as well as the patient's respiration rate), ventilatory parameters (airway pressure, flow and breathing volumes) and gas exchange parameters (oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production) of hospital patients.

Parameters measured by the CARESCAPE Respiratory Modules are CO2, N2O, O2, Anesthetic agents, Agent ID, Spirometry, oxygen consumption (VO2) and carbon dioxide production (VCO2) depending on the model used. The CARESCAPE Respiratory Modules is a family of single-width plug-in parameter modules for modular monitoring systems. The CARESCAPE Respiratory Modules are of the diverting type, which means that a small continuous flow of gas is sampled from the patient's breath to the module for measuring the gas concentrations. The CARESCAPE Respiratory Modules acquire the signals detected by the module sensors, calculate the parameter values and communicate them to the host device. The CARESCAPE Respiratory Modules measure the patient's respiration rate and activate a status signal if no breaths are detected in 20 second time and the modules activate relevant status signals upon detecting failures or anomalies in the operation of the module hardware, software or gas sampling system.

The CARESCAPE Respiratory Modules do not trigger or issue any physiological or technical alarms by themselves. All management of alarms is entirely performed by the host devices based on parameter and status data received from the modules, as well as on the alarm condition data stored in the host device.

This 510(k) introduces two new module models in the CARESCAPE Respiratory Modules family: E-sCAiOE and E-sCAiOVE. These new module models include added hardware compared to the modules cleared in K183394. The operation, measured parameters and performance specifications of the E-sCAiOE and E-sCAiOVE is identical to E-sCAiO and E-sCAiOV when used with the current module host devices cleared in the USA. The added modules E-sCAiOE and E-sCAiOVE have the same software as CARESCAPE Respiratory Modules cleared in K183394.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the GE Healthcare CARESCAPE Respiratory Modules. This document describes the device and its claimed substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It does not contain information about an AI/ML-driven device or a study involving human readers or expert ground truth adjudication for image analysis. Therefore, based on the provided text, I cannot answer the questions related to AI/ML device acceptance criteria and study details.

The document focuses on:

• Device Description: Respiratory modules that measure various parameters like CO2, O2, N2O, anesthetic agents, and ventilatory parameters.
• Predicate Device: K183394 CARESCAPE Respiratory Modules.
• Key Change: Introduction of two new module models (E-sCAiOE and E-sCAiOVE) with added hardware (fresh gas sample connector) but identical operation, measured parameters, and performance specifications when used with current host devices.
• Non-Clinical Tests: Bench testing related to software, hardware, and performance, including compliance with various IEC and ISO standards (e.g., IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, IEC 60601-2-49, ISO 80601-2-55). Biocompatibility and environmental testing were also conducted. Software was considered "Major" level of concern.
• Clinical Tests: The document explicitly states: "The subject of this premarket submission... did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence."

Therefore, I cannot extract the following information that would be relevant to an AI/ML device study:

• Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance for an AI/ML model.
• Sample size for a test set or data provenance for AI/ML validation.
• Number of experts and their qualifications for establishing ground truth.
• Adjudication method for a test set.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness study results or effect size of AI assistance.
• Standalone performance of an algorithm.
• Type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcome data).
• Sample size for the training set.
• How ground truth for the training set was established.

This document pertains to traditional medical device clearance, not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Flexicare Single Use Manometer is attached to the manometer port on Flexicare resuscitation bags to provide visual indication of the patient's airway pressure during ventilation. The device is intended to be used by trained personnel only within a hospital and/or pre-hospital environment.

Flexicare's Single Use Manometer is a single use device that can be attached to the manometer port on resuscitation bags to provide visual indication of the patient's airway pressure during manual ventilation. Flexicare's Single Use Manometer consists of end cap, clear housing with printed pressure scale, concertina seal, slider and stainless steel spring. When pressure rises, the spring is compressed raising the blue concertina seal and showing the pressure via markings on the manometer housing has calibrated marking at 20 cmH2O intervals between 0 through 60 cmH2O. The measured pressures are accurate to ± 1cmH2O. Flexicare's Single Use Manometer is supplied non-sterile and are for use by CPR-trained personnel only within a hospital and/or pre-hospital environments.

The document provided is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for the Flexicare Single Use Manometer. It describes the device, its intended use, and compares it to a legally marketed predicate device (Ambu Disposable Pressure Manometer, K040991) to establish substantial equivalence.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

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

Ask a specific question about this device

The D R Burton® OxyPAP™ device is indicated for the treatment and prevention of atelectasis. It also has the ability to provide supplemental oxygen when used with compressed oxygen. It includes the option of a pressure manometer. The device is for patients (ages 5 years and above) who are capable of following directions for positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy.

Normal use of the D R Burton OxyPAP™ should not be more than 24 hours total combined time.

The environment of use is for hospital and clinical setting.

The OxyPAP device is a handheld respiratory therapy device that creates a positive airway pressure. The OxyPAP device is intended to be used by pediatric (ages 5 years and above) and adult patients in the hospital environment, under the supervision of a healthcare professional. The OxyPAP device is a single patient use device.

The provided text describes the D R Burton OxyPAP device, its indications for use, and a comparison to predicate and reference devices for a 510(k) submission. However, this document does not contain any information about acceptance criteria, a specific study proving the device meets these criteria, or details regarding AI/algorithm performance and ground truth establishment.

The document is a US FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving performance against specific quantitative acceptance criteria through a dedicated standalone study. The "Performance" and "Non-clinical Comparative Performance" sections primarily describe comparative testing to show similarity to existing devices.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill all parts of your request based on the provided text. I will explain what information is present and what is missing.

Summary of what can be extracted from the document:

• Device Name: D R Burton OxyPAP
• Device Type: Incentive Spirometer, Positive Airway Pressure (PAP) Therapy Device
• Indications for Use: Treatment and prevention of atelectasis; ability to provide supplemental oxygen when used with compressed oxygen. For patients (ages 5 years and above) capable of following directions for PAP therapy. Normal use not more than 24 hours total combined time. Environment of use: hospital and clinical setting.
• Predicate Device: K991300 – DHD Healthcare Corp. – Boeing, Positive Airway Pressure (PAP) Therapy Device
• Reference Devices: K173819 – Trudell VersaPAP™ Device; K040991 – Ambu Disposable Pressure Manometer

Missing/Not Applicable Information based on the prompt's requirements:

The document focuses on substantial equivalence for a medical device that is not an AI/ML powered device. As such, information typically associated with AI/ML device validation studies (like distinct acceptance criteria for algorithm performance, expert review for ground truth, MRMC studies, training/test set details, etc.) is not present and not applicable to this type of device submission.

Specifically, the following sections of your request cannot be answered from the provided text:

• 1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: The document presents comparative performance data (e.g., Mean PEEP, Mean Peak Expiratory Pressure), but these are comparisons to predicate/reference devices, not explicit acceptance criteria for a standalone study performance. There are no clear quantitative acceptance criteria stated for the D R Burton OxyPAP itself beyond being "substantially equivalent" to the predicate.
• 2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable as this is a physical device, not an algorithm being tested on a data set. The "bench testing" mentioned includes performance testing and drop testing, but no "sample size" in the context of data points.
• 3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for a physical device like this is established through engineering and clinical performance testing, not expert review of AI outputs.
• 4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
• 5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: Not applicable. This is for an AI-assisted workflow, which is not the case here.
• 6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable, as this is a physical device, not an algorithm.
• 7. The type of ground truth used: For a physical device, "ground truth" would refer to measured physical properties or clinical outcomes. The document discusses "Biocompatibility" (material certification to a legally marketed device) and "Bench Testing" (comparative performance, drop testing, effects of aging). These are the "truths" for this device.
• 8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.
• 9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Information that is present (though not in the requested format for AI/ML devices):

• Device Performance Reported (Comparative, not against specific acceptance criteria):
  • Proposed OxyPAP:
    • Mean PEEP (cmH2O) @800 ml TV: 2.81 @ 5 Lpm, 12 @ 10 Lpm, 12.75 @ 15 Lpm
    • Mean Peak Expiratory Pressure (cmH2O) @800 ml TV: 15 Lpm / 15 cmH2O; 20 (400 TV) / 21 (800 TV)
    • Mean Inspiratory Pressure (cmH2O) @800 ml TV: -0.7 @ 5 Lpm, -4.7 @ 10 Lpm, -3.46 @ 15 Lpm
    • Mean Expiratory Pressure (cm H2O) @ 800 ml TV: 3.1 @ 5 Lpm, 12.1 @ 10 Lpm, 13 @ 15 Lpm
  • Predicate DHD EzPAP (for comparison):
    • Mean PEEP (cmH2O) @800 ml TV: 2 @ 5 Lpm, 8 @ 10 Lpm, 16 @ 15 Lpm
    • Mean Peak Expiratory Pressure (cmH2O) @800 ml TV: 15 Lpm / 15 cmH2O; 22 (400 TV) / 26 (800 TV)
    • Mean Expiratory Pressure (cm H2O) @ 800 ml TV: 5 @ 5 Lpm, 11 @ 10 Lpm, 20 @ 15 Lpm

The core conclusion of the document is that "Based upon the comparative performance testing we have demonstrated that the proposed device compared to the predicate and reference devices can be found to be substantially equivalent." This is the primary "acceptance criterion" for a 510(k) submission of this nature.

Ask a specific question about this device