![]() ![]() ![]() |
| FDA Home Page | CDRH Home Page | Search | A-Z Index | ![]() |
|
NON-INVASIVE BLOOD PRESSURE (NIBP) MONITOR GUIDANCE |
Document issued on: March 10, 1997
While this guidance document represents a final document, comments and suggestions may be submitted at any time for Agency consideration by writing to:
Charles Ho (HFZ-450)
Food and Drug Administration
9200 Corporate Boulevard
Rockville, Maryland 20850.
Scope
This guidance is intended to aid in the preparation or review
of premarket notification (510(k)) applications for some of the
devices regulated under:
CFR Section: 21 CFR §870.1130, Noninvasive Blood Pressure Measurement System
Class: II
Panel: Circulatory System Devices Panel (74)
Product Code: DXN
This guidance applies to non-invasive blood pressure (NIBP) monitors
covered by the ANSI/AAMI SP10-1992 standard for electronic or
automated sphygmomanometers (SP10 standard). Included in the
SP10 standard are automated NIBP monitors which measure blood
pressure at the arm, wrist, or finger of the patient using a standard
oscillometric measurement method.
This guidance does not apply to NIBP monitors excluded by the
SP10 standard, and those which use a non-oscillometric (or non-standard
oscillometric) measurement method. Despite this limitation,
the information contained in this guidance may be helpful to any
NIBP monitor application.
This guidance is complementary to the requirements of 21 CFR §
807.87. Other information not identified in this guidance may
be required in a 510(k) application. This guidance is subordinate
to all other applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.
Recommended Information and Testing
1. Device Description
The description should include sufficient information to define
the design, capabilities, and function of the device, and the
scope of the 510(k) submission. Minimal information includes:
If the 510(k) application is for a modification to an existing
device, the manufacturer should provide the specifications for
the original device and a detailed and complete description of
the similarities and differences between the two versions of the
device. Lastly, the manufacturer should provide a table comparing
the predicate device to the new device for the items listed above.
2. In-Vitro and Clinical Performance Testing
Substantial equivalence can be demonstrated by showing either
1) sufficient comparison testing with a legally-marketed predicate
device, 2) conformance to the SP10 standard, or 3) conformance
to any foreign or domestic standard which meets or exceeds the
requirements of the SP10 standard.
Comparison Testing
It is strongly recommended that substantial equivalence be demonstrated
by showing conformance to the SP10 standard. However, if the
manufacturer chooses to provide comparative testing, the provided
data should meet the General Requirements (listed below)
and account for the following:
SP10 Standard Testing
To show conformance to the SP10 standard, the manufacturer should
list each of the requirements of the standard and describe how
the device conforms to each requirement. For every requirement
which necessitates clinical or in-vitro testing,
the test protocol, test data and results, and analysis should
be provided and clearly identified. The necessary detail for
each element of a test report is described below in General
Requirements. For devices with unique features or intended
uses, additional testing beyond the SP10 standard may be necessary.
If the SP10 standard is chosen by the manufacturer, conformance
to the entire standard is necessary. Conformance to portions
of the standard is insufficient to permit the standard's
use or to allow a labeling claim to that effect. Therefore, if
only part of the standard is met, the manufacturer should refer
to the Comparison Testing section of this guidance.
Foreign Standards
If the manufacturer chooses to conform to a standard other than
the SP10, it is recommended that they list each requirement of
the SP10 standard, compare the foreign standard to the SP10 requirements,
and clearly identify where the foreign standard does not meet
the requirements of the SP10 standard (if at all). Justification
for any differences should be based on valid scientific or statistical
analyses and supported by testing if necessary.
Additional Testing
In addition to the testing described above, it is necessary that
the manufacturer evaluated the following:
General Requirements
In general, any in-vitro test report should
include the following:
In general, any clinical data necessitates consideration or inclusion
of the following:
3. In-Vitro Safety Testing
Environmental Testing
The manufacturer should evaluate the ability of the device to
function after exposure to the environmental hazards expected
when used by an abusive user. Tests for some of these hazards
may be found in SP10, IEC 601-1, and IEC 529. These hazards minimally
include:
Software
To demonstrate the quality of the software used in or with the
device, the following is necessary:
Electrical Safety
Any appropriate standard for electrical safety may be used. If
the SP10 standard is used, the manufacturer should conform to
the standard's requirements
or justify a modification to the standard.
Electromagnetic Compatibility
Electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) testing is necessary to demonstrate
that the device (1) will not adversely interfere with the performance
of other electronic devices (emissions), and (2) will perform
as expected in the presence of other electronic devices or other
sources of electromagnetic interference (EMI) in the intended
environment of use (immunity). To demonstrate EMC for the device,
the following information is necessary:
Any omitted tests or deviations from the requirements of the chosen
standard require justification. In addition, the manufacturer
should provide a list of all known or suspected EMI incidents
associated with the device, the results of any related investigations,
a description of any corrective action taken, and any device labeling
that references EMC or EMI.
Biocompatibility
Identification of all patient and operator contacting materials
and conformance to the International Standard ISO-10993, "Biological
Evaluation of Medical Devices Part 1: Evaluation and Testing,"
is necessary. For materials that are widely used in the same
or similar applications, supportive information demonstrating
the material's use in
other medical devices or products may be acceptable in establishing
biocompatibility. However, any references should be to the same
vendor and material, and account for any changes to the material
due to subsequent processes or manufacturing (e.g., sterilization,
forming, melting).
Sterilization
Usually, there are no sterile components to NIBP monitors. If
sterile components are identified, refer to the 510(k) Sterility
Review Guidance #K90-1 (February 1990) or the most recent
sterilization policy or guidance.
Packaging
The manufacturer should describe all packing for the device.
This description should include a description of the design, materials,
and the sealing method.
For package integrity, any appropriate standard may be used.
If the SP10 standard is used, the manufacturer should conform
to the standard's requirements
or justify any modification.
Shelf Life
Usually a shelf life is not necessary for NIBP monitors. However,
if the device contains any sterile or degradable components, shelf
life data may be necessary.
4. Labeling
Conformance to the labeling regulations and policies is necessary.
Appropriate labeling guidances are available through the Division
of Small Manufacturers Assistance (DSMA) at its toll-free number
(800) 6382041 or at its internet address: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/dsmamain.html.
If the SP10 standard is used, the labeling requirements of the
standard should be included or justification provided for any
modifications.
5. Regulatory Requirements
Either a Summary of Safety and Effectiveness or a 510(k) Statement
is necessary as described in 21 CFR § 807.92 and 21 CFR § 807.93, respectively.
A "Truthful and Accuracy Statement" is necessary
according to 21 CFR § 807.87
(j).
An "Indications for Use Statement" is necessary according to Office of Device Evaluation policy. A format for
this statement can be provided to the manufacturer by DSMA.
Updated April 15, 1997
![]()
CDRH Home Page | CDRH A-Z Index | Contact CDRH | Accessibility | Disclaimer
FDA Home Page | Search FDA Site | FDA A-Z Index | Contact FDA | HHS Home Page
Center for Devices and Radiological Health / CDRH