K-numberK242583
Device nameAT-Patch (ATP-C130/ATP-C70)
ApplicantAtsens Co., Ltd.
Product codeDSH
Device classClass II
Decision dateMay 2, 2025
DecisionSubstantially Equivalent
Regulation870.2800
AI Summary extracted from FDA summary PDF · never regenerated
Intended use

AT-Patch is a wearable ECG recorder that continuously measures and stores electrocardiogram signals for 7–14 days by attaching to the patient's torso. After the wear period, ECG data is uploaded to AT-Report software for automated analysis followed by clinician review. The device is indicated for patients 18+ years with symptoms such as palpitations, shortness of breath, or dizziness, and reports are provided on an advisory basis only.

Technological characteristics

The subject device uses single-channel ECG recording at 250 samples/second with 10-bit resolution, BF-type electrodes, 2.4 GHz Bluetooth communication (IEEE 802.15.4), and a coin-cell battery lasting 7–14 days depending on model (ATP-C70 or ATP-C130). Compared to predicate K203638, the ATP-C70 model is new with reduced wear time (7 vs. 14 days) and lower IP rating (IP44 vs. IP57); both models share identical circuit design, signal characteristics, and RF specifications.

Test standards cited

Electrical and EMC testing per IEC 60601-1:2005/2012, IEC 60601-2-47:2012, IEC 60601-1-2:2020, and IEC 60601-1-11:2015. Biocompatibility per ISO 10993 series. Software validation per IEC 62304:2015. Arrhythmia detection accuracy per ANSI/AAMI EC57:2012. Electrode performance per ANSI/AAMI EC12:2000. Usability per IEC 62366-1:2015 and FDA guidance.

Substantial equivalence argument

The device is substantially equivalent to K203638 (predicate ECG recorder) because both measure, record, and analyze continuous ECG for long-term ambulatory monitoring with the same indications, prescription use, and technical principles—differences in IP rating, size, appearance, and maximum use time do not alter the device's fundamental function or safety. AT-Report is substantially equivalent to K162023 (CardioDay software) because both perform automated rule-based ECG analysis with manual clinician review for arrhythmia detection in hospital/clinic settings; although terminology and arrhythmia classification differ slightly and the subject device has higher software risk classification, the core analytical functionality and intended purpose are comparable, and performance testing demonstrates equivalent accuracy and safety.

Extracted by AI from the official FDA summary PDF →
Source

View the full FDA submission: accessdata.fda.gov

Researching this as a predicate?
Want a transparent AI-ranking score, AI-discovered related predicates, ongoing safety and warning-letter monitoring, full predicate chain lineage, and a drafted SE rationale — all saved to your own project? That's what an account adds.
Start free trial →

Everything you need for a 510(k) submission. Nothing you don't.

14-day free trial. No setup. Cancel anytime.

Start free trial →
Building an AI or ML-enabled device? Predicate search, PCCP tracking, and AI-specific FDA intelligence — built exclusively for AI/ML devices. Try AIFDA Intel →