Slashdot Mirror


More Medical Devices Should Be Open Source, Like This ECG (github.com)

isza writes: This is a follow-up to the Slashdot story about mobilECG, a 12-lead, clinical-grade ECG being open sourced. We have not given up on our goal to get rid of the high-profit-margin and dishonest distribution practices of diagnostic ECGs, and make a certified open source version of this important diagnostic device. After many months of hard work, there is now a working prototype of a much more capable device than the first version, with its sources available on GitHub. MobilECG now has a Holter function, changeable lead-configurations and Bluetooth. Here's a video of the prototype working.

19 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. Hearing aids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hearing aids are another great example of nonsensical medical equipment price gouging.

    1. Re:Hearing aids by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Informative

      "They are custom-fitted, high precision medical devices..."

      Which contain perhaps a hundred bucks worth of electronics and have a history of seldom working to the satisfaction of the patient. My town is full of high-end retirees, and every one I have spoken to has a drawerful of expensive hearing aids that suck. This area of medicine is overripe for disruption by some Silicon Valley company that can make a device that performs more like a natural ear.

    2. Re:Hearing aids by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      So why haven't you started an open source hearing aid project then? Just because the listed factors don't prohibit open source doesn't mean that they're not a big factor in explaining why there aren't open source projects. The same reasons you'd probably give for why you haven't started an open source project are likely the same most others would give as well, so can you blame anyone else for not doing what you yourself also wouldn't do?

      If a filter in GIMP doens't work quite correctly no one really cares. If a medical device malfunctions there are serious legal ramifications. Typically people or companies aren't willing to assume that kind of liability without the potential for making a tidy profit.

    3. Re:Hearing aids by alhead · · Score: 2

      Actually, I have been involved in open source biosensor projects such as ECG and EEG that are still in the development stage. There are others out there: http://openeeg.sourceforge.net... Also, open source and profit are not mutually exclusive.

    4. Re:Hearing aids by PPH · · Score: 2

      What's the down side of a hearing aid failing? Most often, the patient can't hear. Which is pretty much the same as a dead battery. Rarely, I suppose they could do further damage if they failed in a high decibel output mode. But I've never heard of that happening (yuk, yuk).

      So, if the hearing aid turns out to be a piece of shit, that's a problem between the patient and their audiologist. They made a deal to fit a patient with something that works. It doesn't. So fix it or give them a better model. I mean it's not like an artificial hip joint. Some audiologists will take the 'safe' route and prescribe FDA-approved, high priced models. Some will take the economy route and sell an inexpensive unit, accepting the risk that some people may bring them back with complaints. The cheapest crap will fail in the marketplace. As will the overpriced stuff.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Hearing aids by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      Problem is getting the FDA to approve it. Not because of corruption, but just sheer bureaucracy.

      The thing is, once something is considered a medical device, and pretty much just because of that fact alone, the price suddenly goes way up.

  2. Mobile ECG Business card by psergiu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Also check the guy's business card.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    The card is measuring the real Einthoven Lead I ECG curve between the two hands - sampled at 50Hz.

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
  3. FDA by OverlordQ · · Score: 4

    So, who is going to pay for the FDA certification?

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:FDA by sbaker · · Score: 2

      Yep...exactly. That's the reason simple electronic gadgets that are ridiculously easy to make cost an ungodly amount of money if they're used for medical purposes.

      The FDA regulates "medical devices" in the same way it regulates drugs...you have to demonstrate efficacy, safety, do human trials...then there is liability insurance...it's ungodly expensive.

      --
      www.sjbaker.org
  4. Unlikely to be usable in the USA by Fencepost · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not directly involved with medical product design or certification, but while this looks fascinating I think they're going to have a difficult time with selling it, at least in the USA and I suspect in many other countries as well. That's because they're going to have a very hard time getting required certifications / FDA approval, and it'd be really hard to try to argue that this isn't a medical device.

    I'll give a couple of related examples: DICOM viewing software, which has a wide variety of open source and free low-end versions of commercial software, most or all of which are careful to note that they are "Not For Clinical Use" because they haven't been through a certification process. You can get them an use them (for example for reviewing your own medical imaging data), but physician's offices that actually use them for clinical purposes are running significant risks not so much of being sued but of having insurance complications on the off chance that they do get sued (or if the company somehow found out about it).

    The other example I'll offer is Cefaly, a device for treating migraines with low-level electrical stimulation. They were available for quite some time (including over the counter I believe) in Canada and Europe, but it took a couple of years before the FDA approved their marketing and sale in the USA (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm388765.htm). The version approved for the US market was also simplified from the international version, having only a single level rather than the 3 modes found on international models. Cefaly was also reviewed through "the de novo premarket review pathway, a regulatory pathway for generally low- to moderate-risk medical devices that are not substantially equivalent to an already legally marketed device." That's not something that will be available for mobilECG which will likely get a variety of industry pushback noting that it's substantially similar to existing ECG and Holter devices.

    So overall this looks like a great way to improve cardiac care in second- and third-world hospitals lacking access to or priced out of purchasing equipment, but I think their market is a lot smaller than their video implies.

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
    1. Re:Unlikely to be usable in the USA by MountainLogic · · Score: 3, Informative

      You will find that the analog front end for designing an EEG is non-trivial. Humans are a very low impedance source with a very poor signal to noise ratio due to cable, electrode, muscle and other subject generated noise that swamps the signal. Large sacks of electrolytes make great antennas for 50/60 Hz pick-up too. Add in the ability to survive a defibrillator hit of a life-safety device and the analog front end become very interesting. That said, TI has an entire analog front end for ECG that handles many of the thornier challenges including actively driving the leg electrode.

  5. Where is the proof of the rip-off ECGs? by mykepredko · · Score: 3

    This reminds me of an entrepreneur who approached me to help him design and code flat panel instrument panels for light aircraft. He felt that $25k+ for a panel and instruments was ridiculous when he could buy the parts for just a couple of hundred dollars. Then he looked into certifications (which included environmental testing) along with liability insurance and type certificates and suddenly that $25k wasn't so outrageous. This was around ten years ago - doing a quick check, it looks like Aspen Avionics has a fairly inexpensive PFD ($5k for a basic display).

    Now that I'm over 50, my doctor has an ECG he rolls out every couple of years and doesn't seem to regard it as anything other than a piece of equipment like a stethoscope. It has a simple LCD display and it connects via WiFi to the office network where it sends jpgs of the waveforms.

    So, how outrageous are the profits for ECGs and what are the dishonest distribution practices?

    1. Re:Where is the proof of the rip-off ECGs? by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Funny

      jpgs of the waveforms

      Mother of God.

      According to the ECG, your left ventricle has severe artifacting, and your right valve is macroblocking. I'm sorry to have to break it to you like this, but you've got about 38 seconds to live.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  6. Trouble is... by sbaker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...medical devices have to be certified by the FDA (or someone big and scary like that)...and that costs an off-the-charts amount.

    I built a gizmo for some sorts of diabetics who have to be careful about standing still for a long time because it can destroy their feet, There are a truly ghastly number of amputations each year because of this. So - pressure sensors in shoes, bluetooth gizmo, cellphone app that goes BEEEEP! If you're standing badly for too long. Cost to make - about $100...maybe $50 in quantity.

    Sure - any idiot with an arduino and some old-school hacking skills could do that - right? Sure - I don't claim to be all that clever!

    So I go to doctors who specialize in this stuff - they say that the current solution costs $12,000 and mine is just as good. In fact, I could trivially get it to log data, text or email it to the doctor, log it to the cloud...whatever...the $12k gizmo's don't do that.

    Oh - but FDA approval is needed. Human trials. Yadda yadda yadda. Cost of doing that is $500,000. Add product liability insurance, you name it.

    Estimated sales...oh darn. My $50 gizmo will have to sell for $15,000.

    So - 70,000 people who we could EASILY help for very low $$$ are still getting their feet amputated for absolutely no good reason every single year.

    Go figure.

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
    1. Re:Trouble is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is another case of Snake Oil Salesmen ruined it for the rest of us. The problem is that as a layman I can't tell if what you just sold me is garbage or a very useful product.

      We could make the process a lot less inexpensive but then how are the big corps going to pay for their upper management perks?

    2. Re:Trouble is... by pr0t0 · · Score: 2

      Sell it in the Middle East. I was surprised to learn they have the highest incidence of diabetes in the world.

      --
      I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    3. Re:Trouble is... by sbaker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In my case, it didn't matter whether the firmware was opensourced or not...the cost of the certification made it impossible for a small business to do...the cost of liability insurance was insane. There are requirements to certify the manufacturing process (so no $6 Arduino clone) and a requirement to offer a repair service (Really? Just throw the old one away and buy a new one!)...it's crazy.

      When you consider the cost of amputation (surgery - not being able to walk afterwards, loss of quality of life, etc) - even this device doesn't have to be anywhere near 100% reliable to do a lot of people a lot of good. But if just one person were to lose a foot because the gizmo failed to warn them - the resulting lawsuit would bankrupt any small business just like that.

      So, 70,000 people per year suffer one of the worst things that can happen to anyone as a direct consequence of a broken system.

      --
      www.sjbaker.org
    4. Re:Trouble is... by yodleboy · · Score: 2

      Is there a reason you can't market it as a general "activity" monitor like fitbit and similar items? So long as you don't state or imply that it's a form of treatment for diabetics (or any other specific condition), wouldn't you be ok? A little very carefully worded, targeted advertising that diabetics are likely to see would allow them to make their own judgement on whether it would/could help them manage their condition. If it's as good as you say and so much cheaper, word of mouth may be all you need. Might want to forget about the communication back to doctor features though.

  7. Gaming the system. by westlake · · Score: 2

    A little very carefully worded, targeted advertising that diabetics are likely to see would allow them to make their own judgement on whether it would/could help them manage their condition.

    So easy, so tempting. So dangerous a precedent.

    What you suggest reminds me of the marketing of tobacco products, homeopathic remedies, etc.