Search Results

The Zio monitor is a prescription-only, single-use, ECG monitor that continuously records data for up to 14 days. It is indicated for use on patients, 18 years and older, who may be asymptomatic or who may suffer from transient symptoms such as palpitations, shortness of breath, dizziness, lightheadedness, pre-syncope, syncope, fatigue, or anxiety.

The Zio monitor is a non-sterile, single-use, continuously recording, long-term ambulatory ECG monitor that is adhered to a patient's left pectoral region in a modified Lead II orientation. The goal of the Zio monitor is to help physicians initiate long-term, patient-compliant ECG monitoring utilizing proprietary technology. The Zio monitor is applied and activated by the patient at home or at a clinic. Once activated, the device provides continuous, uninterrupted ECG recording into memory with minimal patient interaction. There is a button on the surface of the Zio monitor, which serves to activate the device and may be pressed by the patient during wear to indicate when he or she is experiencing a symptom. Additionally, there is a surface LED light that blinks green to confirm proper activation or that the device is working, and orange to indicate loss of connection with the skin or the presence of error conditions.

The Zio monitor utilizes firmware that captures single-channel ECG data into memory, there is no wireless transmission of data during the wear period of the device. After the prescribed monitoring period is complete, the Zio monitor is returned to iRhythm where the ECG data is then analyzed and annotated by the ZEUS System (K222389). ECG data is then presented to the Qualified Cardiac Technicians (QCT) at the Independent Diagnostic Testing Facility (IDTF) for review and subsequent creation and posting of the end-of-wear report with preliminary findings. Zio monitor device is not intended for real-time patient monitoring.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the Zio® monitor. It details the device, its indications for use, comparison to a predicate device, and nonclinical testing performed to establish substantial equivalence. However, it explicitly states:

"No clinical testing was performed in support of this premarket notification."

Therefore, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance based on a clinical study, nor specific details about sample size, data provenance, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, or MRMC studies, as these aspects relate to clinical testing which was not conducted for this submission.

Here's what I can extract and state based on the provided document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Based on the provided document, the acceptance criteria and device performance are established through nonclinical testing, demonstrating conformance to recognized standards and performance specifications, rather than through a clinical study with specific performance metrics like sensitivity or specificity for detecting arrhythmias.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable as no clinical testing was performed. The nonclinical testing would have used various test samples, components, or simulated data as appropriate for each specific engineering and performance test (e.g., system testing, electrical testing).
• Data Provenance: Not applicable for clinical data. For nonclinical testing, the data is generated in-house or by accredited testing laboratories as part of the device's design verification and validation.

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

• Not applicable as no clinical testing with human-established ground truth was reported. Ground truth in nonclinical testing refers to established engineering specifications or reference standards.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable as no clinical testing requiring expert adjudication was performed.

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 as no clinical testing was performed. The device, Zio monitor, is described as recording ECG data which is then "analyzed and annotated by the ZEUS System (K222389)" and "presented to the Qualified Cardiac Technicians (QCT) at the Independent Diagnostic Testing Facility (IDTF) for review." This implies an existing workflow with a human-in-the-loop, but this submission specifically states no clinical testing was performed to evaluate its effectiveness in combination with human readers.

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

• The document implies that the "ZEUS System (K222389)" performs initial analysis and annotation of the ECG data, but this specific 510(k) is for the Zio® monitor hardware device. Performance data for the ZEUS System itself would be found in its own 510(k) clearance (K222389). This submission does not provide standalone algorithm performance metrics.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For the nonclinical testing, the ground truth would be based on:
  • Engineering Specifications: Device design requirements and intended performance.
  • Recognized Consensus Standards: Compliance with international standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series, ISO 10993 series).
  • Internal Product Specifications: How the device is designed to function and its measurable outputs.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This submission is for a hardware device and relies on nonclinical testing for substantial equivalence, not a machine learning model's training set. While the ZEUS System (K222389) likely uses a training set, details for that system are outside the scope of this document.

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

• Not applicable as no training set for an algorithm is discussed in this submission for the Zio® monitor hardware.

Ask a specific question about this device

The LuMon™ System is a noninvasive, non-radiation device that provides information on regional impedance variation within a cross-section of a patient's thorax. Graphical and numerical information is presented to the user as an adjunctive tool to other clinical information to support the user to assess a patient's respiratory condition.

The LuMon™ System is indicated for neonatal and infant patients with chest circumferences between 16.5 - 50 cm and adolescent through adult patients with chest circumferences between 76 - 128 cm who are breathing spontaneously or require mechanical ventilation in professional healthcare facilities.

Impedance-based respiratory rate monitoring is indicated for adults 22 years and older whose chest circumference is above 76 cm only.

The LuMon™ System also displays selected physiological and respiratory parameters from supported bedside devices.

The LuMon™ System does not measure regional ventilation of the lungs.

The LuMon™ System is a compact and lightweight Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) system that provides noninvasive monitoring of variations of regional air content/volume within a cross-section of the patient's thorax and patient respiration. It displays the results as real-time EIT images, waveforms, and derived parameters.

The system consists of a controller display unit, signal acquisition connector cable, and patient-applied conductive textile electrode belts. The system can connect to external bedside devices such as ventilators and monitoring devices to display contextual information for interpretation of EIT measurements.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the LuMon™ System contains information regarding its acceptance criteria and the studies conducted to demonstrate its performance. However, some specific details commonly found in a comprehensive study report (e.g., exact sample size for each clinical study, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods beyond "clinician-scored") are not explicitly stated in this high-level summary.

Based on the provided text, here's a structured response addressing your request:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for LuMon™ System

The LuMon™ System underwent extensive non-clinical (bench and pre-clinical) and clinical testing to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness. The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the performance characteristics presented in the comparison tables and the successful attainment of stated accuracies and correlations.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are generally established as equivalent to or better than the predicate/reference devices, or as meeting pre-defined tolerances for specific parameters.

• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated regarding country of origin for clinical data. The studies are described as "pre-clinical" and "clinical," with no indication of being retrospective. "Clinical testing was performed to support safety and effectiveness" generally implies prospective data collection for regulatory purposes.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: For the Respiration Rate study, the reference standard was "Clinician-scored EtCO2 capnogram." This implies medical professionals were involved in establishing the ground truth, but their specific qualifications (e.g., types of physicians, years of experience) are not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• For Respiration Rate Ground Truth: "Clinician-scored EtCO2 capnogram" implies expert review. However, the exact adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, majority vote, independent reads with reconciliation) is not specified.

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

• It is not explicitly stated that a specific MRMC study was conducted to compare human readers with and without AI assistance.
• The device is presented as an "adjunctive tool to other clinical information to support the user," meaning it assists clinicians rather than replacing them. Its effectiveness is shown through its ability to provide accurate EIT data and respiratory rate, which clinicians would then integrate into their assessment. The summary focuses on the device's accuracy relative to reference standards or predicate devices, not on direct human-AI performance comparison studies.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

• Yes, the performance characteristics listed in the tables (e.g., R-squared correlations for EIT-CT, accuracy for RRi against reference standards, SNR, voltage accuracy) represent the standalone performance of the algorithm and the device. The clinical studies compare the device's output itself to established medical standards or other modalities, distinct from how a human user might interpret or use that output.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Pre-clinical (Regional Impedance Distribution): Differential CT changes in aeration (healthy and injured lungs, one- and two-sided intubation) and "established physiological changes" were used as ground truth.
• Clinical (Global Volume Changes): Body plethysmograph traces and Ventilator flow-sensed volumes were used as ground truth.
• Clinical (Regional Impedance Distribution): The Timpel Enlight 2100 predicate comparison was used for ground truth.
• Clinical (Respiration Rate): Clinician-scored EtCO2 capnogram was used as ground truth.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• The information provided is a 510(k) summary, which typically focuses on validation. The sample size for the training set is not provided in this document. Training data details are usually proprietary and not disclosed in 510(k) summaries unless directly relevant to the regulatory pathway or substantial equivalence claim.

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• The document does not specify how ground truth was established for the training set. Similar to the training set size, details about the training data and its ground truth establishment are generally considered proprietary and are not typically included in a public 510(k) summary. The summary focuses on the independent test data performance.

Ask a specific question about this device

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

• Real time viewing of patient clinical data and alarms from compatible physiological monitors. Viewing of non-real time patient clinical data of compatible anesthesia devices (i.e. not indicated for real-time monitoring of clinical data of compatible anesthesia devices).

• Storage and Historical review of patient clinical data and alarms from compatible physiological monitor, and anesthesia devices.

• Printing patient data from compatible physiological monitor, and anesthesia devices.

• Configuration of local settings as well as synchronizing settings across the network to remote compatible physiological monitors.

• Transfer of patient clinical data and settings between several CentralStations.

• Provides a Resting 12 Lead interpretation of previously stored data.

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

The BeneVision Central Monitoring System supports one or more Mindray compatible physiological monitors, anesthesia systems and will display, store, print, and transfer information received from the compatible monitors, anesthesia systems.

The telemetry monitoring systems are designed to acquire and monitor physiological data for ambulating patients within a defined coverage area. The BeneVision Central Monitoring System supports Telemetry Systems: TMS-6016, Telepack-608, TMS60, TM80, and TM70.

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

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

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

• The TM80/TM70 telemetry monitor is intended for use on Adult and Pediatric patients over three years old to monitor ECG, SpO2, NIBP and Resp physiological data. The physiological data can be analyzed, alarmed, stored, reviewed locally on the display of the monitor, and the CentralStation can config and display the physiological parameters from the TM80/TM70.

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

The BeneVision Central Monitoring System (CMS) is a networked patient monitoring system intended for use in healthcare settings by, or under the direction of, a physician to provide clinicians remote patient monitoring. The target patient population is adult patients and pediatrics.

When connected to a compatible anesthesia device, BeneVision CMS can display the parameters, waveforms and alarms of the anesthesia device. The device does not contain bi-directional capabilities for the compatible anesthesia devices.

The BeneVision CMS includes the AlarmGUARD application. AlarmGUARD supports delivering notifications of physiological and technical alarms to clinical professionals' mobile devices. AlarmGUARD is not intended for real time monitoring of patients and is not intended to act as a primary source for alarms.

It appears the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the BeneVision Central Monitoring System (K242728) does not contain specific acceptance criteria, test results (like sensitivity/specificity, accuracy metrics), or detailed study methodologies that directly address how the device's performance meets quantitative acceptance criteria for its intended functions.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K220058) through:

• Comparison of Indications for Use: Showing minor differences (expanded compatibility to include anesthesia systems, but not for real-time monitoring).
• Technological Comparisons: Highlighting changes in operating systems, host configurations, and the addition of features like Multi-Patient Viewer separation and AlarmGUARD support.
• Performance Data Section: This section lists the types of testing conducted but does not provide the results of those tests or specific acceptance criteria met by those results. It merely states that "Software verification and validation testing was conducted" and "Verification of the BeneVision Central Monitoring System was conducted to ensure that the product works as designed. Validation was conducted to check the design and performance of the product."

Therefore, based solely on the provided text, I cannot extract the detailed information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, reported performance, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or training set details.

The document confirms the following regarding the study:

• Study Type: Software verification and validation testing, along with specific bench testing.
• Clinical Data/Animal Testing: Not applicable/not required for this submission to establish substantial equivalence. This suggests the clearance relies on non-clinical data and comparison to the predicate.
• Ground Truth: The document implies that the ground truth for software verification and validation would be the design specifications and expected behavior of the system, rather than clinical outcomes or expert consensus on a diagnostic task. For the "Waveform Display Accuracy from compatible Anesthesia Machine," the ground truth would likely be the direct output from the anesthesia machine itself.

What is present in the document that somewhat relates to your request:

• "Bench Testing" section (Page 19): This lists specific tests performed:
  • AlarmGUARD IEC 60601-2-27
  • AlarmGUARD IEC 60601-1-8
  • AlarmGUARD Human Factors
  • Waveform Display Accuracy from compatible Anesthesia Machine

To fulfill your request as best as possible with the given information, I will have to state that many details are explicitly absent from this public 510(k) summary.

Here's a structured response based on the provided document, indicating what information is present and what is absent:

Device Acceptance Criteria and Performance Study Summary (K242728)

Based on the provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter and Summary, detailed quantitative acceptance criteria and specific performance metrics (like accuracy, sensitivity, specificity) for the BeneVision Central Monitoring System are not explicitly presented. The submission primarily relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K220058) through verification and validation of software and specific bench testing.

The document states that "Software verification and validation testing was conducted and documentation was provided as recommended by FDA's Guidance 'Content of Premarket Submissions for Device Software Functions: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff'." It also mentions that "Verification of the BeneVision Central Monitoring System was conducted to ensure that the product works as designed. Validation was conducted to check the design and performance of the product."

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified in the provided document for any of the listed tests (AlarmGUARD, Waveform Display Accuracy, general software V&V).
• Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). Given that no clinical data was used or required, the "data" would be synthetic, simulated, or derived from direct device connections during bench testing.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• Not applicable / Not specified. The document does not describe the use of human experts to establish ground truth for a diagnostic task or for the performance evaluation of this central monitoring system. The focus is on software function and electro-mechanical performance validation against design specifications and international standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable / Not specified. No adjudication method is mentioned as human reader input for a test set is not described.

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

• No. The document explicitly states that "Clinical testing is not required to establish substantial equivalence to the predicate device" and does not mention any MRMC study. This device is a central monitoring system displaying physiological data, not an AI diagnostic tool requiring MRMC studies for improved human reader performance.

6. Standalone Performance (Algorithm Only)

• The "performance data" section lists "Software Verification and Validation Testing" and "Bench Testing" (including "Waveform Display Accuracy from compatible Anesthesia Machine"). These tests conceptually represent 'standalone' performance in that they evaluate the device's technical functions directly. However, no specific quantitative standalone performance metrics (e.g., classification accuracy, sensitivity, specificity for any internal algorithms) are provided in this summary beyond the statement that v&v was conducted to ensure the product "works as designed."

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth for the device's performance appears to be:
  • Design Specifications: For general software verification and validation.
  • External Reference Standards/Simulators: For tests like "Waveform Display Accuracy" (e.g., comparing the displayed waveform to the known, true signal generated by a simulator or the anesthesia machine itself).
  • International Standards: For AlarmGUARD functionality (e.g., IEC 60601-2-27, IEC 60601-1-8).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable / Not specified. This document describes a traditional medical device (patient monitoring system software) rather than a machine learning/AI device that typically requires a distinct "training set." Therefore, no training set size is mentioned.

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

• Not applicable / Not specified. As no training set for an AI/ML model is indicated, there is no mention of how its ground truth would be established.

Ask a specific question about this device

The monitors are intended to be used for monitoring, storing, recording, and reviewing of, and to generate alarms for, multiple physiological parameters of adults and pediatrics (including neonates). The monitors are intended for use by trained healthcare professionals in hospital environments.

The monitored physiological parameters include: ECG, respiration (RESP), temperature (TEMP), functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO₂), pulse rate (PR), non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP), invasive blood pressure (IBP), carbon dioxide (CO2), and cardiac output (C.O.).

The arrhythmia detection and ST Segment analysis are intended for adult patients.

The NIBP monitoring supports iCUFS algorithm and iFAST algorithm. The iCUFS algorithm is intended for adult, pediatric and neonatal patients. The iFAST algorithm is intended for adult and pediatric patients (≥3 years of age). Both measurement algorithms are also intended for use with pregnant women, including pre-eclamptic patients. NIBP MAP is not applicable to pregnant women.

The Spot Temp with T2A module can only measure temperature of adult and pediatric (> 1 year of age) patients.

The monitors are not intended for MRI environments.

The cardiac output (C.O.) is only intended for adult patients.

The CX&UX series Patient Monitor including CX10/CX12/CX15/UX10/UX12/UX15 can perform long-time continuous monitoring of multiple physiological parameters. Also, it is capable of storing, displaying, analyzing and controlling measurements, and it will indicate alarms in case of abnormalities so that doctors and nurses can respond to the patient's situation as appropriate.

Minor differences from the predicate device are limited to some modifications of monitoring parameter specifications. These updates do not change the fundamental scientific technology of the cleared predicate device and thus do not raise any questions about the safety and effectiveness of the subject device.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter details the device's technical specifications and comparisons to predicate devices, along with the non-clinical performance data and adherence to various IEC and ISO standards. However, it explicitly states: "Clinical data: The subject device did not require new clinical studies to support substantial equivalence."

This means that the submission for this Patient Monitor device (CX10, CX12, CX15, UX10, UX12, UX15) relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (Edan Instruments, Inc., Patient Monitor Model iX10, iX12, iX15, K232962) through non-clinical performance testing and software verification/validation, rather than new clinical trials or studies involving human patients.

Therefore, the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and studies that prove the device meets acceptance criteria through clinical performance (e.g., sample size for test set, expert involvement, MRMC studies, ground truth establishment for test/training sets, effect size of human reader improvement with AI) cannot be extracted from this document, as such clinical studies were explicitly not required for this 510(k) submission.

The document focuses on demonstrating that the new device's technical specifications and performance are similar to the predicate device, and that it complies with relevant safety and performance standards through bench testing.

Here's what can be extracted from the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and the type of study performed, specifically focusing on the non-clinical aspects:

Device: Patient Monitor (CX10, CX12, CX15, UX10, UX12, UX15)

The acceptance criteria for this device are implicitly tied to its performance meeting the standards and accuracy specifications of the predicate device and relevant international standards. Since no new clinical studies were conducted, the "proof" comes from non-clinical bench testing and software validation.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Non-Clinical/Bench Testing)

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

• Sample Size: Not applicable in terms of human subjects or patient data test sets, as "new clinical studies" were not required. The "test set" refers to bench testing and functional system-level validation. The specific number of test cycles or a detailed breakdown of test cases for bench testing is not provided in this summary.
• Data Provenance: The data primarily originates from Edan Instruments Inc. (Shenzhen, Guangdong, China) through internal engineering and quality assurance processes for non-clinical bench testing and software validation. It is not patient data, so concepts like "retrospective or prospective" do not apply.

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

• Not applicable for clinical ground truth: Since no clinical studies were performed requiring human interpretation or diagnosis for a test set, no medical experts (e.g., radiologists) were used to establish ground truth in this context.
• Internal experts: Bench testing and software validation would have involved engineers and quality assurance professionals, whose qualifications are implicit in the quality system (21 CFR Part 820) but not specified in detail here.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable: Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) are relevant for clinical studies involving multiple readers. This was not a clinical study. Bench testing relies on established technical specifications and standard compliance.

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

• No: No MRMC study was performed as no new clinical studies were required or conducted. Therefore, there's no effect size of human readers improving with AI assistance. The device is a patient monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

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

• Yes (for the technical components): The "performance testing-Bench" effectively represents a standalone evaluation of the device's functional components (ECG, NIBP, SpO2, etc.) and software against defined technical specifications and standards. The "software verification and validation testing" also represents a standalone evaluation of the algorithm and software functions. The specific algorithms (e.g., iCUFS, iFAST for NIBP, arrhythmia analysis logic) are tested independently for their accuracy against known inputs or reference standards as part of bench testing.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Technical/Reference Standards: For the bench testing, the "ground truth" would be derived from:
  • Reference standards/simulators: Calibrated medical equipment, physiological simulators, and test signals (e.g., known ECG waveforms, simulated blood pressure readings, temperature standards) are used to provide the "true" values against which the device's measurements are compared.
  • Defined specifications: The device's internal design specifications and the requirements of the referenced IEC/ISO standards serve as the "ground truth" for compliance testing.
• Not clinical ground truth: No expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data from real patients were used for establishing ground truth for this submission.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable: The device is a patient monitor, not a machine learning/AI algorithm that typically undergoes a distinct "training" phase with a large dataset. Its functionality is based on established physiological measurement principles and programmed algorithms. Any internal calibration or algorithm refinement would be part of the product development process, not a dedicated "training set" in the AI/ML sense.

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

• Not applicable: As there was no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML model, the concept of establishing ground truth for it does not apply to this 510(k) submission.

In summary, this 510(k) clearance relies on demonstrating that the new Patient Monitor is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared predicate device, primarily through robust non-clinical bench testing and software validation, proving compliance with established medical device standards and functional specifications. No new clinical studies with patient data were required or conducted for this specific submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

MoMe ARC® is indicated for:

1. Patients who experience transient symptoms that may suggest cardiac arrhythmia.
2. Patients who require monitoring of effect of drugs to control ventricular rate in various atrial arrhythmias (e.g. atrial fibrillation)
3. Patients with symptoms that may be due to cardiac arrhythmias. These may include but are not limited to symptoms such as: a) dizziness or lightheadedness; b) syncope of unknown etiology in which arrhythmias are suspected or need to be excluded; and c) dyspnea (shortness of breath)
4. Patients recovering from cardiac surgery or interventional procedures who are indicated for outpatient arrhythmia monitoring.
5. ECG data recorded by the device can be analyzed by other processing systems to provide Holter style reports.

MoMe ARC® is contraindicated for:

1. MoMe ARC® is contraindicated for those patients requiring attended, in hospital monitoring for life threatening arrhythmias.
2. MoMe ARC® is not intended for use on infants weighing less than 10kg (22lbs.). Clinical judgement is necessary to determine if the MoMe ARC® is appropriate for specific pediatric patients.
3. The patch configuration of the MoMe ARC® is contraindicated for monitoring QT intervals for patients taking Class III antiarrhythmic drugs.

Note: MoMe ARC® does not provide interpretive statements. Interpretation and diagnosis is the responsibility of a physician.

The MoMe ARC® device consists of a Sensor Pod, Leads, Gateway, and Charging Cradle with accessories. The body worn Sensor Pod acquires, stores and forwards electrocardiogram (ECG) data from Leads in a Wired Lead-Set or in a Patch to the Gateway using a 2.4GHz BLE wireless link. The Gateway consists of an OTS mobile device running the MoMe ARC® Gateway Mobile App. The Gateway is a Medical Device Data System (MDDS) which stores and forwards the ECG signal data to the MoMe Software Platform (K152491) via a wireless cellular link.

The MoMe ARC® communicates with the MoMe Software Platform (K152491), a web-based remote server software with proprietary algorithms for analysis, using the MoMe Device Communications Protocol. The MoMe Software System (K152491) analyzes the data via the embedded algorithm and, when indicated, data identified by the algorithm is flagged for physician review.

Once activated and operating normally, the system requires no patient intervention to capture or analyze data. However, the MoMe ARC® has an optional patient triggered event feature that allows for manual selection and recording of patient symptoms, if and when desired.

The device is intended for use under prescription only (Rx only) for monitoring patients with suspected cardiac arrhythmias.

The MoMe ARC®:

• Is non-invasive and poses no significant safety issues;
• Uses existing electrode and patch ECG technology; and
• Is used in an adjunctive fashion, where physicians also use patient symptoms and other tests, in the diagnosis or monitoring of patients with suspected cardiac arrhythmias.

MoMe ARC® is not an emergency service. If the patient is experiencing symptoms that he/she is concerned about, the patient needs to seek immediate medical attention.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the MoMe ARC® Wireless Ambulatory ECG Monitoring and Detection System:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document explicitly states that the device's performance met "predefined acceptance criteria" for sensitivity and positive predictivity, and provided a "mean absolute error" for heart-rate accuracy. However, the precise numerical values for the acceptance criteria thresholds themselves for sensitivity and positive predictivity are not explicitly stated in the provided text. We only have the reported performance.

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

• Sample Size: 87 adult subjects.
  • Inpatient cohort: 75 subjects
  • Outpatient cohort: 12 subjects
• Data Provenance:
  • Country of origin: United States ("single U.S. clinic").
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Prospectively collected.

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

• Number of Experts: Not explicitly stated as a number of individual experts. However, the ground truth was established by "Certified Cardiac Technicians (CCTs)". This implies multiple CCTs were likely involved in adjudicating the data.
• Qualifications of Experts: Certified Cardiac Technicians (CCTs). The document doesn't provide further detail on their experience level (e.g., years of experience).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• The data from all 87 subjects were "adjudicated by Certified Cardiac Technicians (CCTs) using Holter software, with beat locations, morphologies, and arrhythmia annotations serving as the reference standard."
• This suggests a single-reader adjudication process per case by a CCT to establish the ground truth, rather than a multi-reader consensus method like 2+1 or 3+1.

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 comparative effectiveness study was not reported. The study focused on the performance of the "Software Platform's sensitivity and positive predictivity" against a CCT reference, which is a standalone performance evaluation, not a human-in-the-loop study comparing human performance with and without AI assistance.

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

• Yes, a standalone performance evaluation was done. The "Software Platform's sensitivity and positive predictivity were calculated using ANSI/AMI/IEC EC57:2012 methods" against the CCT-adjudicated reference standard. This directly assesses the algorithm's performance.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth was established through "expert consensus" in the form of "adjudication by Certified Cardiac Technicians (CCTs) using Holter software, with beat locations, morphologies, and arrhythmia annotations serving as the reference standard." This is a form of expert consensus based on established clinical procedures (Holter analysis).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• The document does not specify the sample size for the training set. It only describes the clinical validation study (test set).

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

• The document does not state how the ground truth for the training set was established. It only describes the ground truth process for the independent test set used for performance validation.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Rhythm Express remote cardiac monitoring system is intended for use by patients greater than 10 kg who either have or are at risk of having cardiac disease and those that demonstrate intermittent symptoms indicative of cardiac disease and require cardiac monitoring on a continuing basis. The device continuously records ECG data and upon detection by an ECG analysis algorithm or manually initiated by the patient, automatically delivers the recorded cardiac activity to the server where it is presented for review by a medical professional. The data received from the Rhythm Express device can be used by another compatible device for arrhythmia analysis, reporting and signal measurements. The Rhythm Express device is not intended to be used as part of an alarm system or for active patient monitoring.

The device does not deliver any therapy, administer any drugs, provide interpretive or diagnostic statements or provide for any life support. The Rhythm Express system communicates events from the patient to the monitoring center within one to seven minutes (assuming cell service is available) and hence is not suitable for use as a real-time arrhythmia event monitor.

This device is not intended for patients in whom quantification of triplets/couplets is needed.

The RX-1 mini Rhythm Express Remote Cardiac Monitoring System (RCMS) is a multiple function device consisting of three components: 1) the RX-1 mini remote cardiac monitoring device ("RX-1 mini device") with on-board ECG waveform analysis algorithm, 2) the Web Service (RS-1) with server and database, and 3) back-office software (Operator Portal and Clinic Portal). The RS-1 server, Operator Portal, and Clinic Portal are non-device software functions.

The RX-1 mini device is worn by patients for a period of time as prescribed by a physician, up to 30 days, and continuously monitors ECG. The RX-1 mini device functions in one of three modes: a) Outpatient Cardiac Telemetry (OCT), b) Event Recorder (ER), and c) Wireless Holter monitor (WH). The device connects to standard ECG electrodes to capture 2 channel ECGs. The embedded algorithm processes the acquired ECG to detect arrhythmias, compress the ECG, and remove most in-band noise without distorting ECG morphology. The RX-1 mini device incorporates a cellular modem and Wi-Fi to communicate with the RS-1 Web Service.

The RX-1 mini device is not a life-supporting or life-sustaining system. Clinical judgment and experience are used to check and interpret the data. The device does not deliver any therapy, administer any drugs, provide interpretive or diagnostic statements.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary does not contain the specific details required to fully address your request regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them.

The provided document primarily focuses on:

• Regulatory information: Clearance letter, product codes, classification, and applicable regulations.
• Device comparison: High-level overview of similarities and differences with the predicate device.
• General performance testing: A list of standards to which various tests were conducted (EMC, electrical safety, biocompatibility, software functionality, etc.), but not the specific results or acceptance criteria for those tests.
• Indications for Use: Clarification on the intended purpose of the device.

Crucially, it lacks the detailed information about the clinical study, including:

• Specific acceptance criteria for clinical performance: While it mentions "ECG algorithm performance," it doesn't state what metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity for arrhythmia detection) were used or what the target values were.
• Reported device performance values: There are no tables or explicit statements of the device's accuracy for detecting specific cardiac events.
• Test set details: No information on sample size, data provenance, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, or adjudication methods for the clinical performance study.
• Training set details: No information on the training data size or how its ground truth was established.
• MRMC study: There's no mention of a human-in-the-loop study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance.
• Standalone performance: While it alludes to "ECG algorithm performance," it doesn't explicitly state the results of a standalone algorithm performance study.

Therefore, based solely on the provided text, I cannot create the table of acceptance criteria and reported performance, nor can I fully describe the study in the detail you requested.

The document states: "Performance testing verifies that the RX-1 mini Rhythm Express RCMS meets performance specifications." and "Performance testing data demonstrate that the subject device is as safe, and as effective, as the predicate device." This implies that such data exists and was submitted to the FDA, but it is not included in this public-facing summary.

To meet your request, one would typically need access to the full 510(k) submission, which would include detailed study reports, statistical analysis plans, and performance data.

Ask a specific question about this device

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are portable multi-parameter patient monitors intended to be used for monitoring, recording, and to generate alarms for multiple physiological parameters of adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients in a hospital environment and during intra-hospital transport.

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are intended for use under the direct supervision of a licensed health care practitioner.

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are not Apnea monitors (i.e., do not rely on the device for detection or alarm for the cessation of breathing). These devices should not be used for life sustaining/supporting purposes.

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are not intended for use during MRI.

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P can be stand-alone monitors or interfaced to other devices via network.

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P monitor and display: ECG (including ST segment, arrhythmia detection, ECG diagnostic analysis and measurement), invasive blood pressure, heart/pulse rate, oscillometric non-invasive blood pressure (systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressure), functional oxygen saturation (SpO2) and pulse rate via continuous monitoring (including monitoring during conditions of clinical patient motion or low perfusion), temperature with a reusable or disposable electronic thermometer for continual monitoring Esophageal/Nasopharyngeal/Tympanic/Rectal/Bladder/Axillary/Skin/Airway/Room/Myocardial/Core/Surface temperature, impedance respiration, respiration rate, airway gases (CO2, O2, N2O, anesthetic agents, anesthetic agent identification and respiratory rate), Cardiac Output (C.O.), Entropy, neuromuscular transmission (NMT) and Bispectral Index (BIS).

The monitor B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are able to detect and generate alarms for ECG arrhythmias: Asystole, Ventricular tachycardia, VT>2, Ventricular Bradycardia, Accelerated Ventricular Rhythm, Ventricular Couplet, Bigeminy, Trigeminy, "R on T", Tachycardia, Bradycardia, Pause, Atrial Fibrillation, Irregular, Multifocal PVCs, Missing Beat, SV Tachy, Premature Ventricular Contraction (PVC), Supra Ventricular Contraction (SVC) and Ventricular fibrillation.

The proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are new version of multi-parameter patient monitors developed based on the predicate monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P (K213490) to provide additional monitored parameter Bispectral Index (BIS) by supporting the additional optional E-BIS module (K052145) which used in conjunction with Covidien BISx module (K072286).

In addition to the added parameter, the proposed monitors also offer below several enhancements:

• Provided data connection with GE HealthCare anesthesia devices to display the parameters measured from anesthesia devices (Applicable for B105M, B125M and B155M).
• Modified Early Warning Score calculation provided.
• Separated low priority alarms user configurable settings from the combined High/Medium/Low priority options.
• Provided additional customized notification tool to allow clinician to configure the specific notification condition of one or more physiological parameters measured by the monitor. (Applicable for B105M, B125M and B155M).
• Enhanced User Interface in Neuromuscular Transmission (NMT), Respiration Rate and alarm overview.
• Provided Venous Stasis to assist venous catheterization with NIBP cuff inflation.
• Supported alarm light brightness adjustment.
• Supported alarm audio pause by gesture (Not applicable for B105M and B105P).
• Supported automatic screen brightness adjustment.
• Supported network laser printing.
• Continuous improvements in cybersecurity

The proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P retain equivalent hardware design based on the predicate monitors and removal of the device Trim-knob to better support cleaning and disinfecting while maintaining the same primary function and operation.

Same as the predicate device, the five models (B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P) share the same hardware platform and software platform to support the data acquisition and algorithm modules. The differences between them are the LCD screen size and configuration options. There is no change from the predicate in the display size.

As with the predicate monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P (K213490), the proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are multi-parameter patient monitors, utilizing an LCD display and pre-configuration basic parameters: ECG, RESP, NIBP, IBP, TEMP, SpO2, and optional parameters which include CO2 and Gas parameters provided by the E-MiniC module (K052582), CARESCAPE Respiratory modules E-sCO and E-sCAiO (K171028), Airway Gas Option module N-CAiO (K151063), Entropy parameter provided by the E-Entropy module (K150298), Cardiac Output parameter provided by the E-COP module (K052976), Neuromuscular Transmission (NMT) parameter provided by E-NMT module (K051635) and thermal recorder B1X5-REC.

The proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P are not Apnea monitors (i.e., do not rely on the device for detection or alarm for the cessation of breathing). These devices should not be used for life sustaining/supporting purposes. Do not attempt to use these devices to detect sleep apnea.

As with the predicate monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P (K213490), the proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P also can interface with a variety of existing central station systems via a cabled or wireless network which implemented with identical integrated WiFi module. (WiFi feature is disabled in B125P/B105P).

Moreover, same as the predicate monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P (K213490), the proposed monitors B105M, B125M, B155M, B105P and B125P include features and subsystems that are optional or configurable, and it can be mounted in a variety of ways (e.g., shelf, countertop, table, wall, pole, or head/foot board) using existing mounting accessories.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for K242562 (Monitor B105M, Monitor B125M, Monitor B155M, Monitor B105P, Monitor B125P) do not contain information about specific acceptance criteria, reported device performance metrics, or details of a study meeting those criteria for any of the listed physiological parameters or functionalities (e.g., ECG or arrhythmia detection).

Instead, the documentation primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K213490) by comparing features, technology, and compliance with various recognized standards and guidance documents for safety, EMC, software, human factors, and cybersecurity.

The summary explicitly states: "The subject of this premarket submission, the proposed monitors B105M/B125M/B155M/B105P/B125P did not require clinical studies to support substantial equivalence." This implies that the changes introduced in the new device versions were not considered significant enough to warrant new clinical performance studies or specific quantitative efficacy/accuracy acceptance criteria beyond what is covered by the referenced consensus standards.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information from the given text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: This information is not present. The document lists numerous standards and tests performed, but not specific performance metrics or acceptance thresholds.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not explicitly stated for performance evaluation, as clinical studies were not required. The usability testing mentioned a sample size of 16 US clinical users, but this is for human factors, not device performance.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable, as detailed performance studies requiring expert ground truth are not described.
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, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance: Not applicable. This device is a patient monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that would typically involve human readers.
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 including applicable consensus standards," which implies standalone testing against known specifications or simulated data. However, specific results or detailed methodologies for this type of testing are not provided beyond the list of standards.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not explicitly stated for performance assessment. For the various parameters (ECG, NIBP, SpO2, etc.), it would typically involve reference equipment or validated methods as per the relevant IEC/ISO standards mentioned.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable, as this is not an AI/ML device that would require explicit training data in the context of this submission.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided document focuses on demonstrating that the new monitors are substantially equivalent to their predicate through feature comparison, adherence to recognized standards, and various non-clinical bench tests (e.g., hardware, alarms, EMC, environmental, reprocessing, human factors, software, cybersecurity). It does not contain the detailed performance study results and acceptance criteria typically found for novel diagnostic algorithms or AI-driven devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TeleRehab® Aermos Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation System is intended to acquire and condition the ECG signal from a patient so that it can be transmitted wirelessly from a radiofrequency transmitter to a workstation in a hospital or a clinical setting where the data is displayed and analyzed. This device also measures heart rate and provides visual and audible alarms if the patient's heart rate goes out of a prescribed range. This device is for use with ambulatory adult patients who need monitoring while undergoing cardiovascular and/or pulmonary rehabilitation. The physiological data from monitoring and other patient information (such as patient demographics, exercise protocol and medical information) is stored in a database for tracking and reporting of the patients' progress through rehabilitation.

The TeleRehab® Aermos Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation System ("Aermos") provides the ECG monitoring functionality required for performing rehabilitation of cardiovascular and/or pulmonary patients. Patients' ECG may be monitored using the Aermos system during exercise under clinical supervision. During monitoring, Aermos provides both visual and audible alarms if the patient's heart rate goes out of a prescribed range. The heart rate alarm indication is one of multiple inputs a clinician may use to modify and adjust rehabilitation activities such as decreasing the patient's level of physical exertion or halting the exercise entirely.

Aermos also provides the ability to plan a patient's rehabilitation program and document the patient's progress through the creation of various types of reports. The report types supported in Aermos include individual treatment plan reports, daily exercise session reports and various patient information reports. Additionally, the Aermos system provides the ability to transfer various report types to the hospital Electronic Medical Records system.

The main components of Aermos are Argus ECG transmitters, the Aermos Workstation and associated networking equipment.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to the TeleRehab Aermos Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation System, which is a device for monitoring ECG signals and heart rate during patient rehabilitation. The provided documentation (the 510(k) Summary) details non-clinical bench testing for performance and safety but explicitly states that clinical testing was not applicable.

Therefore, based on the provided document, the following information regarding acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets those criteria, specifically concerning an AI/algorithm-driven component with clinical performance metrics, cannot be fully extracted or is explicitly stated as not performed:

Here's an analysis of the provided information relative to your request:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on Non-Clinical Bench Testing)

Since no clinical study was performed, the "reported device performance" would pertain to the results of non-clinical bench testing against established performance standards. The document does not provide specific quantitative acceptance criteria or reported numerical performance results for the device. Instead, it states that the device's specifications were "verified through internal verification testing" and its usability "evaluated through internal validation testing," and that it complies with various international standards.

Study Details (Based on the provided 510(k) Summary)

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

   • See the table above. Specific quantitative acceptance criteria beyond "compliance with standard" are not provided in this regulatory summary.

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

   • The document explicitly states "Clinical Testing: Not applicable."
   • For the non-clinical bench testing, specific sample sizes (e.g., number of devices tested, number of test cases) are not detailed in this 510(k) summary.
   • Data provenance for non-clinical testing would typically be internal laboratory data generated during device development and verification. There is no mention of geographical origin or retrospective/prospective nature as this was not clinical data.

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

   • Not applicable, as no clinical study with human interpretation/ground truth was performed. The "ground truth" for bench testing would be defined by validated test equipment and reference standards.

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

   • Not applicable, as there was no study involving human readers or interpretation requiring adjudication.

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 was done, as clinical testing was "Not applicable." The device is a physiological signal monitor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool that interprets images or signals requiring human reader comparison.

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

   • The core functionality of the device (ECG acquisition, heart rate measurement, alarms) is algorithmic. The performance of these algorithms would have been assessed during the non-clinical bench testing, which is essentially "standalone algorithm" testing against known inputs and expected outputs. Specific quantitative results (e.g., algorithm accuracy for heart rate) are not provided in this summary beyond "compliance with IEC 60601-2-27" and "ANSI/AAMI EC57: 2012, Testing and Reporting Performance Results of Cardiac Rhythm and ST-Segment Measure Algorithms."

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

   • For non-clinical bench testing, the "ground truth" is typically established by:
     • Reference standards and calibrated test equipment: For electrical performance, signal acquisition accuracy, frequency response, etc.
     • Simulated physiological signals: For testing heart rate calculation and alarm thresholds.
     • Design specifications and established engineering principles: For software functionality and cybersecurity.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. The device is a monitoring system and not primarily driven by a deep learning or machine learning algorithm that requires a "training set" in the sense of a large dataset for model development. The algorithms for heart rate calculation, etc., are likely traditional signal processing algorithms.

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

   • Not applicable, as there was no training set for a machine learning model.

Summary of Device Nature and Regulatory Pathway:

The TeleRehab Aermos Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation System is a Class II device (Product Codes DRG, DRT) which functions as a physiological signal transmitter and receiver. It monitors ECG and heart rate and provides alarms. Its 510(k) clearance relied on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices primarily through non-clinical bench testing against recognized industry standards (e.g., IEC 60601 series, ANSI/AAMI, ISO standards) and adherence to FDA guidance documents (e.g., for software, cybersecurity, reprocessing). The explicit statement "Clinical Testing: Not applicable" indicates that the nature of the device and its intended use, combined with the comprehensive non-clinical data, satisfied the FDA's requirements for demonstrating safety and effectiveness without the need for a human-subject clinical study. This is common for devices that are evolutionary improvements on existing technologies with well-understood performance parameters.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Radius VSM and accessories are intended to be used as both a wearable multi-parameter patient monitor and an accessory to a multi-parameter patient monitor that is intended for multi-parameter physiological patient monitoring in hospital and healthcare facilities.

The Radius VSM and accessories are indicated for the monitoring of hemodynamic (including ECG, arrhythmia detection, non-invasive blood pressure, SpO2, Pulse Rate, PVi, heart rate, and temperature), and respiratory (e.g., impedance, acoustic, and pleth-based respiration rate) physiological parameters along with the orientation and activity of adults.

The Radius VSM and accessories are indicated for the non-invasive continuous monitoring of functional oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin (SpO2) and Pulse Rate (PR) of well or poorly perfused adults during both no motion and motion conditions.

The Radius VSM and accessories are indicated for continuous monitoring of skin temperature of adults.

The Radius VSM and accessories are indicated for monitoring of the orientation and activity of patients including those susceptible to pressure ulcers.

The Radius VSM and accessories are indicated for the continuous non-invasive monitoring of PVi as a measure of relative variability of the photoplethysmograph (pleth) of adults during no motion conditions. PVi may be used as a noninvasive dynamic indicator of fluid responsiveness in select populations of mechanically ventilated adult patients. Accuracy of PVi in predicting fluid responsiveness is variable and influenced by numerous patient, procedure and device related factors. PVi measures the variation in the plethysmography amplitude but does not provide measurements of stroke volume or cardiac output. Fluid management decisions should be based on a complete assessment of the patient's condition and should not be based solely on PVi.

Devices with Masimo technology are only indicated for use with Masimo accessories.

Radius VSM Accessories:

Radius VSM ECG Electrodes are disposable, single-patient use ECG electrodes intended to acquire ECG signals from the surface of the body. They are indicated for use on adults for up to 3 days of skin surface contact.

Radius VSM Blood Pressure Cuffs are accessories intended to be used with a noninvasive blood pressure measurement system to measure blood pressure. They are indicated for use on adults during no motion conditions.

The Radius VSM and accessories are an FDA cleared (K223498), wearable, battery-operated, multi-modular patient monitoring platform that allows for the ability to scale and tailor the use of different monitoring technologies based upon the hospital and clinician's assessment of what technologies are appropriate.

As part of this submission, a MAP feature is being added to the Radius VSM. The feature is a software feature that uses the previously cleared systolic and diastolic measurement capabilities to automate the calculation of MAP using the following formula: MAP = 1/3* Systolic + 2/3*Diastolic.

The MAP is calculated by the Radius VSM NIBP Module and displayed on the Radius VSM Wearable Monitor. There were no other features added as part of this submission.

The provided 510(k) clearance letter and summary discuss the addition of a Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) feature to the previously cleared Radius VSM and Accessories device. The primary focus of the performance data section is on validating this new MAP feature.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document states that the acceptance criterion for Blood Pressure (including MAP) is:

"Meets ISO 81060-2 (Mean difference of ≤5 mmHg with a standard deviation of ≤8 mmHg)"

The document directly states that the results of the clinical testing supported the clinical performance of the MAP in accordance with ISO 81060-2. While specific numerical results (e.g., the exact mean difference and standard deviation achieved) are not explicitly provided in the summary table, the clearance implies that these metrics fell within the specified ISO 81060-2 limits for the MAP feature.

Table 1: Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance for MAP Feature (as inferred from the document)

Study Details for MAP Feature Validation

1. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

   • Sample Size: The document does not explicitly state the numerical sample size (number of subjects/patients) used for the clinical test set. It only mentions "clinical study data."
   • Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin. It indicates it was a "clinical study" and implies it was prospective ("clinical testing is provided to support its performance" for the added feature).

2. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of those Experts:

   • Not applicable as the ground truth was established by an objective reference device, not human experts.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • Not applicable, as the method for ground truth establishment was comparison to a reference device.

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

   • No, an MRMC study was not done. The study was a comparison of the device's calculated MAP to invasively measured MAP from a reference device. This is a technical performance validation, not a study assessing human reader improvement with AI assistance.

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

   • Yes, this was a standalone performance study. The Radius VSM automatically calculates the MAP based on the NIBP measurements (Systolic and Diastolic Pressure). The clinical testing validated the accuracy of this calculation against a reference standard, without human intervention in the MAP calculation or interpretation for the test itself.

6. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • Reference Ground Truth: Invasively measured MAP values from a 510(k) cleared reference device (K171801). This reference device is identified as "IntelliVue Multi-Measurement Module X3." This constitutes a device-based reference standard or instrument-based ground truth.

7. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

   • The document does not provide information about a training set since the MAP feature appears to be a direct calculation using a standard formula (MAP = 1/3* Systolic + 2/3*Diastolic) rather than a machine learning model that requires a training phase. While the device as a whole (Radius VSM) likely had training and validation phases for its other parameters, the specific "addition of a Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) feature" is described as a software feature that "automates the calculation" using a known formula. Therefore, a separate training set for this specific MAP feature is unlikely to have been required or used in the conventional machine learning sense.

8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:

   • As inferred above, a specific training set and ground truth establishment for this isolated MAP calculation feature are not described, given its nature as a direct formulaic calculation.

Summary of Key Information:

The core of this submission revolves around adding a simple, formula-based calculation for MAP. The primary study presented is a clinical validation confirming that the device's computed MAP aligns with a known industry standard (ISO 81060-2) when compared against an invasive reference device. This is a technical performance validation rather than a complex AI-driven diagnostic study.

Ask a specific question about this device

DeepRhythmAI is a cloud-based software that utilizes AI algorithms to assess cardiac arrhythmias using a single- or two-lead ECG data from adult patients. It is intended for use by a healthcare solution integrator to build web, mobile or another types of applications to let qualified healthcare professionals review and confirm the analytic result. The product supports downloading and analyzing data recorded in the compatible formats from ECG devices such as Holter, Event recorder, Outpatient Cardiac Telemetry devices or other similar recorders when the assessment of the rhythm is necessary. The product can be electronically interfaced and perform analysis with data transferred from other computer-based ECG systems, such as an ECG management system. DeepRhythmAI can be integrated into medical devices. In this case, the medical device manufacturer will identify the indication for use depending on the application of their device. DeepRhythmAI is not for use in life-supporting or sustaining systems or ECG Alarm devices. Interpretation results are not intended to be the sole means of diagnosis. It is offered to physicians and clinicians on an advisory basis only in conjunction with the physician's knowledge of ECG patterns, patient background, clinical history, symptoms and other diagnostic information.

The DeepRhythmAI is a cloud-based software utilizing CNN and transformer models for automated analysis of ECG data. It uses a scalable Application Programming Interface (API) to enable easy integration with other medical products. The main component of DeepRhythmAI is an automated proprietary deep-learning algorithm, which measures and analyzes ECG data to provide qualified healthcare professional with supportive information for review. DeepRhythmAI can be integrated into medical devices. The product supports downloading and analyzing data recorded in compatible formats from ECG devices such as Holter, Event recorder, Outpatient Cardiac Telemetry devices or other similar recorders used when assessment of the rhythm is necessary. The DRAI can also be electronically interfaced and perform analysis with data transferred from other computer-based ECG systems, such as an ECG management system. DeepRhythmAI doesn't have User Interface therefore it should be integrated with the external visualization software used by the ECG technicians for the ECG visualization and analysis reporting.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for DeepRhythmAI offer general statements about performance testing but lack the specific details required to fully address all aspects of the request, especially quantifiable acceptance criteria and the results that prove them. The document primarily focuses on the substantial equivalence argument against a predicate device (which is itself DeepRhythmAI).

Based on the provided text, here's an attempt to extract and infer the information:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance:

The document mentions that the device was tested "according to the recognized consensus standards, ANSI/AAMI/IEC 60601-2-47:2012/(R)2016 and AAMI/ANSI/EC57:2012." These standards define performance requirements for ECG analysis devices, including aspects like beat detection accuracy, heart rate accuracy, and arrhythmia detection. However, the exact quantifiable acceptance criteria (e.g., "accuracy must be >X%") and the observed numeric device performance (e.g., "accuracy was Y%") are not reported in the provided text.

The closest we get to "reported performance" is the statement: "Overall, the software verification & validation testing was completed successfully and met all requirements. Testing demonstrated that the subject device performance was deemed to be acceptable." This is a qualitative statement, not quantitative performance data.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Study Details:

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

   • Test Set Sample Size: The document states the algorithm was "tested against the proprietary database (MDG validation db) that includes a large number of recordings captured among the intended patient population." The exact number of recordings is not specified, only "a large number."
   • Data Provenance: The data comes from a "proprietary database (MDG validation db)." The country of origin is not explicitly stated. The document indicates it includes data for both two-lead and single-lead patch recorders, implying diverse ECG device sources. It is implied to be retrospective data collected for validation purposes.

2. 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. The document states a "proprietary database" was used for validation, but it does not detail how the ground truth within this database was established (e.g., by how many cardiologists or expert technicians, or their qualifications).

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

   • This information is not provided in the document.

4. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, if so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

   • A MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance is not mentioned in the provided text. The study described focuses on the standalone performance of the device against a ground truth. The device "is offered to physicians and clinicians on an advisory basis only" and results are "not intended to be the sole means of diagnosis," indicating a human-in-the-loop context, but no study is presented to quantify this human-AI interaction's effect on reader performance.

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

   • Yes, a standalone performance study was done. The document states the algorithm was "tested against the proprietary database (MDG validation db)." The entire summary of performance data refers to evaluation of the "DeepRhythmAI software for arrhythmia detection and automated analysis of ECG data." There is no mention of human interaction during this performance evaluation.

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

   • The document implies the use of an "MDG validation db" but does not specify the type of ground truth used to annotate this database. It's common for such ECG databases to rely on expert adjudicated annotations, but this is not explicitly stated.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The sample size for the training set is not provided. The document only discusses the "MDG validation db" which is used for testing/validation.

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

   • As the training set sample size is not provided, neither is information on how its ground truth was established.

Summary of Missing Information:

The provided document, being a 510(k) clearance letter and summary, serves to establish substantial equivalence. It confirms that specific performance testing was conducted according to recognized standards and deemed acceptable, but it does not provide the detailed scientific study results that would include:

• Quantifiable acceptance criteria and the exact numeric performance results for each criterion.
• The raw sample size of the test set.
• Details on the experts involved in ground truth creation for the test set (number, qualifications, adjudication method).
• Information on any MRMC studies or effect sizes of AI assistance on human readers.
• Explicit details about the ground truth methodology for the validation database.
• Any information regarding the training dataset (size, ground truth methodology).

To fully answer the request, one would typically need access to the full 510(k) submission, which contains the detailed V&V (Verification and Validation) reports.

Ask a specific question about this device