Search Results
Found 3 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(29 days)
The Reliance Endoscope Processing System is intended for washing and high level disinfection of up to two manually pre-cleaned, immersible, reusable, heat-sensitive, semi-critical devices such as GI flexible endoscopes and their accessories. High level disinfection is achieved within the 50 - 57°C HLD Phase of the endoscope processing cycle (4 minute generation sequence followed by a 6-minute exposure sequence).
The Reliance Endoscope Processing System is a high level disinfection system that can wash and high level disinfect up to two manually precleaned, immersible, reusable, heatsensitive, semi-critical devices such as GI flexible endoscopes and related accessories. The system utilizes Reliance™ DG Dry Germicide, a proprietary, safe, and dry peracetic acid generating oxidative chemistry. The Reliance Endoscope Processing System was designed to be versatile in meeting the growing demands of the modern flexible endoscope processing department, while offering the highest level of patient and staff safety. The Reliance Endoscope Processing System is a combination of products that are used to wash and high level disinfect flexible endoscopes and their accessories.
The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "Reliance Endoscope Processing System." The submission is to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (K102244) and specifically addresses a change to the ink used on the label of the Reliance DG Dry Germicide.
Therefore, the study described is not for the primary performance of an AI/ML medical device, but rather a biocompatibility study related to a minor modification in a non-AI medical device's labeling. As such, many of the requested elements for an AI/ML device (e.g., sample size for test/training sets, data provenance, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth establishment) are not applicable (N/A) to this specific submission.
However, I can extract the relevant information regarding the acceptance criteria and the biocompatibility study performed.
Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Biocompatibility Study)
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
| Test | Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|---|
| Biocompatibility with alternate ink used on the label of Reliance DG Dry Germicide | Extracts from devices processed in the Reliance EPS with Reliance DG with the alternate ink on the label shall meet the acceptance criteria for cytotoxicity in ISO 10993-5:2009, Annex A Neutral Red Assay | PASS |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
- Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in terms of number of samples, but refers to "Extracts from devices processed in the Reliance EPS with Reliance DG with the alternate ink on the label." This is a laboratory-based biomechanical/biocompatibility test, not a clinical study with patients.
- Data Provenance: The study is a non-clinical, laboratory test (biocompatibility). Country of origin is not specified, but it's a verification activity performed by the manufacturer, STERIS Corporation. It is prospective testing for this specific change.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
- N/A. This is a non-clinical biocompatibility test with a defined chemical/biological assay (ISO 10993-5:2009, Annex A Neutral Red Assay). The "ground truth" is measured objectively by the assay, not by expert consensus.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
- N/A. Not applicable for a laboratory biocompatibility test. The result is a direct measurement against a predefined standard.
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:
- N/A. This is not an AI/ML device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
- N/A. This is not an AI/ML device.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
- For this biocompatibility study: The "ground truth" is the objective measurement of cytotoxicity as defined by the ISO 10993-5:2009, Annex A Neutral Red Assay.
8. The sample size for the training set:
- N/A. This is not an AI/ML device, and no training set is described or relevant for this type of non-clinical testing.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
- N/A. As no training set is relevant, this question is not applicable.
Ask a specific question about this device
(28 days)
The Reliance Endoscope Processing System is intended for washing and high level disinfection of up to two manually pre-cleaned, immersible, reusable, heat-sensitive, semi-critical devices such as GI flexible endoscopes, bronchoscopes and their accessories. High level disinfection is achieved within the 50 - 57℃ HLD Phase of the Endoscope Processing Cycle (4 minute generation sequence followed by a 6-minute exposure sequence).
The Reliance Endoscope Processing System is an economical, easy-to-use high level disinfection system intended to wash and high level disinfect up to two manually cleaned, immersible, reusable, heat-sensitive, semi-critical devices such as GI flexible endoscopes and related accessories. The system utilizes Reliance™ DG Dry Germicide, a proprietary, safe, and dry peracetic acid generating oxidative chemistry. The Reliance Endoscope Processing System was designed to be versatile in meeting the growing demands of the modern flexible endoscope processing department, while offering the highest level of patient and staff safety. The Reliance Endoscope Processing System is a combination of products that are used to wash and high level disinfect flexible endoscopes and their accessories.
- The Reliance Endoscope Processor is an electromechanical washer/high level disinfector with a microprocessor-based controller that provides for automated endoscope processing cycles and processor self-decontamination cycles.
- Reliance DG Dry Germicide is a proprietary, two-part, dry, single-use oxidative chemistry, designed to generate the high level disinfection solution upon automatic dilution in water within the Reliance Endoscope Processor.
- Optional washing is provided through the automated delivery of Klenzyme Enzymatic Presoak and Cleaner during the wash phase of the cycle.
- CIP 200 Acid-Based Process and Research Cleaner, a general cleaning agent, is used in one of the two self-decontamination cycles provided by the processor.
- Various accessories are available to accommodate the processing needs of specific endoscopes and endoscopic accessories.
- Verify Reliance CI Process Indicator is available to monitor for the presence of the Reliance DG active ingredient, peracetic acid.
The provided text describes the STERIS® Reliance® Endoscope Processing System, an automated endoscope reprocessor. The document is a 510(k) summary submitted to the FDA, demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and providing performance data.
Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the success of the tests conducted according to FDA guidance documents for germicidal efficacy, simulated-use, and in-use studies. The reported device performance indicates that these criteria were met.
| Acceptance Criterion (Implicit) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|
| Germicide Efficacy (Reliance DG Dry Germicide): | |
| Sporicidal activity (defined by AOAC Sporicidal Activity Test with 6 minutes exposure). | Proven sporicidal in situ. Confirmatory testing completed, supplemental confirmatory testing in the processor with aged germicide. |
| Tuberculocidal activity (defined by AOAC Tuberculocidal Activity Test with 6 minutes exposure). | Proven tuberculocidal. Potency confirmed with aged germicide. |
| Virucidal activity (reduction of poliovirus Type 1, adenovirus Type 5, and herpes simplex virus Type 1 by > 4 log₁₀). | Proven to reduce viable population by > 4 log₁₀. |
| Bactericidal activity (defined by AOAC Bactericidal Activity Test with 6 minutes exposure at worst case conditions). | Proven bactericidal in situ or in vitro. |
| Fungicidal activity (defined by AOAC Fungicidal Activity Test with 6 minutes exposure). | Proven fungicidal in situ or in vitro. |
| Simulated-Use Study (High-Level Disinfection performance within the processor): | |
| Greater than a 6 log₁₀ reduction of Mycobacterium terrae within the Reliance Endoscope Processor. | Reproducibly achieved greater than a 6 log₁₀ reduction of Mycobacterium terrae in triplicate trials using selected clinically relevant flexible endoscopes and accessories (representing most challenging devices). |
| In-Use Study (Clinical effectiveness after manual cleaning and high-level disinfection): | |
| No organisms recovered after processing clinically used endoscopes. | In triplicate evaluations of each of three flexible endoscopes (representing the product labeling range) used in clinical procedures, no organisms were recovered after processing. Bioburden levels prior to processing were as high as 10⁵ CFU/device. |
| Biocompatibility (Residues on medical devices): | |
| Residues remaining on medical endoscopes and accessories below established residue limits and non-cytotoxic. | Residues remaining on medical endoscopes and accessories are below established residue limits and do not pose a risk. Biocompatibility testing of extracts from processed devices demonstrated no toxic residuals. Processor final rinse water was found to be non-cytotoxic. |
| Material Compatibility: | |
| No deleterious effects or functional changes on medical devices (e.g., flexible endoscopes) after repeated processing cycles (e.g., 300 cycles). | After 300 processing cycles, no deleterious effects were observed other than minor cosmetic changes. No functional changes in flexible endoscopes were observed. |
| Processor Performance (Critical Process Parameters): | |
| Water temperature and volume, fresh Reliance DG Dry Germicide container detection, boot pressure, delivery of washing solutions and high level disinfection solution, and water filter integrity testing within required specifications under worst-case conditions. | Each critical parameter was evaluated in replicate under worst case conditions and found to be within required specifications. |
| Washing phase effectiveness: Devices pre-soiled with combination of eggs, blood, mucin, and serum in saline are visually clean and achieve greatly reduced yield of extractable protein per cm² device area (e.g., reduced from >173 to < 5 μg/cm²). | Documented that after the shortest possible washing phase, devices were visually clean and achieved greatly reduced yield of extractable protein per cm² device area (reduced from >173 to < 5 μg/cm²). |
| Rinse phase effectiveness: Levels of residuals remaining on devices below allowable limits and non-cytotoxic. | Evaluated extracts of devices exposed to worst case conditions in the Endoscope Processing Cycle documented that levels of residuals remaining on devices were far below allowable limits and were not cytotoxic. |
| Air purge phase effectiveness: Ability to remove rinse water from processed medical devices. | Validated to confirm the ability to remove rinse water from processed medical devices. |
| Filter integrity test system reliability: Reliably detect filter failure. | Documented to reliably detect filter failure. |
| D-LONG cycle effectiveness: Disinfect the processor after a high-level challenge with Pseudomonas aeruginosa followed by 5 days inactive period. | Proven effective to disinfect the Reliance Endoscope Processor after a high level challenge with Pseudomonas aeruginosa followed by a 5 day inactive period. |
| D-SHORT cycle effectiveness: Kill bacteria that have the potential to form biofilm. | Proven effective to kill bacteria that have potential to form biofilm. |
2. Sample Sizes Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
-
Germicide Efficacy Tests (Sporicidal, Tuberculocidal, Virucidal, Bactericidal, Fungicidal): "Standard array of microbiological tests" and "triplicate trials" are mentioned for simulated-use. Specific sample sizes for each in vitro test are not explicitly quantified in the provided text beyond these general statements.
-
Simulated-Use Study: "Triplicate trials" for Mycobacterium terrae reduction. No specific number of endoscopes or accessories is explicitly stated, other than "selected clinically relevant flexible endoscopes and their accessories" and "represented the range of most challenging devices."
-
In-Use Study: "Three flexible endoscopes representing the range of types indicated in the product labeling" were used. "In triplicate evaluations of each endoscope." This indicates a total of 9 clinical processing events (3 endoscopes x 3 evaluations).
-
Material Compatibility: "After 300 processing cycles."
-
Processor Performance: "Each critical process parameter... evaluated in replicate." Specific number of replicates not provided beyond "replicate."
-
Data Provenance:
- In-Use Study: Conducted in a "US hospital" (prospective, clinical).
- All other tests (Germicide Efficacy, Simulated-Use, Biocompatibility, Material Compatibility, Processor Performance, Stability): These appear to be laboratory-based studies (likely prospective, conducted by the manufacturer or contract labs). The text does not specify external data sources or retrospective analysis for primary efficacy/safety testing.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts
The provided text does not mention the use of human experts to establish ground truth for the test sets (i.e., for determining sterility, log reduction, etc.). The ground truth for these studies is based on quantitative microbiological assays and analytical chemistry methods, which are objective and do not require expert consensus for interpretation.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
Not applicable. The ground truth is objective (microbiological tests, chemical analysis, visual inspection for cleanliness, etc.), rather than expert-derived or needing 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
Not applicable. This device is an automated endoscope reprocessor, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device that would involve human readers interpreting images.
6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Yes, the primary studies described (Germicide Efficacy, Simulated-Use, Processor Performance, Material Compatibility) are all "standalone" in the sense that they evaluate the device's performance directly, independent of a human operator's judgment in the final assessment of disinfection efficacy or product integrity. The "in-use" study has a manual cleaning step by a human prior to automated processing, but the outcome assessment (microbiological culture) is objective and independent of human interpretation.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
The ground truth used in these studies is primarily objective laboratory measurements and outcomes data:
- Microbiological Culture and Assays: For sporicidal, tuberculocidal, virucidal, bactericidal, fungicidal, simulated-use (Mycobacterium terrae reduction), and in-use studies (recovery of organisms).
- Chemical Analysis: For germicide concentration, pH, chelation capacity, and detection of residues on devices.
- Visual Inspection: For visual cleanliness after the washing phase.
- Protein Assays: For measuring extractable protein per cm² device area.
- Functional Testing: For assessing functional changes in endoscopes after repeated processing.
- Measurements against Specifications: For critical process parameters (temperature, volume, pressure, filter integrity).
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
Not applicable. This device is an electromechanical system with chemical efficacy, not a machine learning or AI-based system that requires a "training set" in the context of algorithm development. Its performance is based on physical and chemical principles and verified through empirical testing.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
Not applicable, as no training set (in the context of AI/ML) was used.
Ask a specific question about this device
(116 days)
The Reliance Endoscope Processing System is intended for washing and high level disinfection of up to two manually pre-cleaned, immersible, reusable, heat-sensitive, semi-critical devices such as GI flexible endoscopes, bronchoscopes and their accessories. High level disinfection is achieved within the 50 - 57°C HLD Phase of the Endoscope Processing Cycle (4 minute generation sequence followed by a 6-minute exposure sequence).
The Reliance Endoscope Processing System is an economical, easy-to-use high level disinfection system intended to wash and high level disinfect up to two manually cleaned, immersible, reusable, heat-sensitive, semi-critical devices such as GI flexible endoscopes and related accessories. The system utilizes Reliance™ DG Dry Germicide, a proprietary, safe, and dry peracetic acid generating oxidative chemistry. The Reliance Endoscope Processing System was designed to be versatile in meeting the growing demands of the modern flexible endoscope processing department, while offering the highest level of patient and staff safety. The Reliance Endoscope Processing System is a combination of products that are used to wash and high level disinfect flexible endoscopes and their accessories.
Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Reliance® Endoscope Processing System, based on the provided text:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The document doesn't explicitly present a formal table of "acceptance criteria," but rather describes various performance validations and their successful outcomes. I've synthesized this information into a table format based on the description of safety and substantial equivalence testing.
| Acceptance Criterion (Implicit) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|
| Microbiological Efficacy - Reliance DG Dry Germicide: | |
| Sporicidal activity | Proven sporicidal as defined by AOAC Sporicidal Activity Test with a 6-minute in situ exposure time, confirmed with supplemental testing in the processor and using aged germicide. |
| Tuberculocidal activity | Proven tuberculocidal as defined by AOAC Tuberculocidal Activity Test with a 6-minute exposure time, confirmed using aged germicide. |
| Virucidal activity | Reduced viable population of poliovirus Type 1, adenovirus Type 5, and herpes simplex virus Type 1 by > 4 log10. |
| Bactericidal activity | Proven bactericidal as defined by AOAC Bactericidal Activity Test with a 6-minute exposure time at worst-case conditions, both in situ and in vitro. |
| Fungicidal activity | Proven fungicidal as defined by AOAC Fungicidal Activity Test with a 6-minute exposure time, both in situ and in vitro. |
| Processor Performance - Endoscope Processing Cycle: | |
| Simulated-Use (Mycobacterium terrae reduction) | Reliably achieved > 6 log10 reduction of Mycobacterium terrae in triplicate trials using selected clinically relevant flexible endoscopes and accessories (representing challenging devices) within the processor, at minimum recommended germicide dose. |
| In-Use (no organism recovery) | No organisms recovered after processing of three flexible endoscopes in an in-use study in a US hospital. |
| Washing phase effectiveness (visual cleanliness & protein removal) | Devices pre-soiled with eggs, blood, mucin, and serum were visually clean and achieved greatly reduced extractable protein (< 5 µg/cm²) after the shortest possible washing phase (reduced from >173 µg/cm²). |
| Rinse phase effectiveness (residue removal, non-cytotoxicity) | Residuals remaining on devices were far below allowable limits and non-cytotoxic, even under worst-case exposure conditions. Processor final rinse water was found to be non-cytotoxic. |
| Air purge phase effectiveness | System's ability to remove rinse water from processed medical devices confirmed. |
| Filter integrity test system reliability | Documented to reliably detect filter failure. |
| Critical process parameters (e.g., temp, volume, boot pressure) | Each critical parameter was found to be within required specifications in replicate under worst-case conditions. |
| Processor Performance - Self-Decontamination Cycles: | |
| D-LONG cycle effectiveness | Can disinfect the processor after a high-level challenge with Pseudomonas aeruginosa followed by a 5-day inactive period. |
| D-SHORT cycle effectiveness | Can kill bacteria with the potential to form biofilm. |
| Biocompatibility: | |
| Safe handling and use of chemicals | Chemical formulations (as supplied and in-use dilutions) can be safely handled. Residues on medical endoscopes are below established limits and do not pose a risk. Safety statements are appropriate. |
| Residual toxicity on medical devices | Biocompatibility testing of extracts from processed medical devices demonstrated no toxic residuals remain under worst-case circumstances. Worst-case residue levels for high-risk components are far below allowable limits. Use dilution reaches non-cytotoxic levels with minimal dilution. |
| Material Compatibility: | |
| Effect on medical devices (e.g., endoscopes) | After 300 processing cycles, no deleterious effects were observed on intact medical devices, including flexible endoscopes and/or common materials of device construction, other than minor cosmetic changes. No functional changes were observed. |
| Germicide Stability: | |
| Shelf life | Found stable for 18 months in unopened moisture-resistant packaging at stated conditions. Once opened, containers must be used within 2 weeks or by expiration, whichever comes first. |
| Electrical Standards Compliance: | Certifield to ANSI/UL -61010-1, CAN/CSA C22.2 61010-1, IEC 61010-1:2001, IEC 61010-2-40, 1st Ed., and IEC 61326-1:2005, 1st Ed. |
2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance
- Test Set (Simulated-Use): Triplicate trials for the Mycobacterium terrae reduction study, using "selected clinically relevant flexible endoscopes and their accessories." The document states these "represented the range of most challenging devices, accessories, and processing situations." No specific number of endoscopes or accessories is provided beyond "selected."
- Test Set (In-Use): Three flexible endoscopes were used, representing the range of types indicated in the product labeling. Triplicate evaluations were performed for each endoscope.
- Test Set (Material Compatibility): "300 processing cycles" were performed on medical devices, including flexible endoscopes and/or common materials of device construction.
- Data Provenance:
- The "In-Use" study was conducted in a "US hospital."
- Other studies (Sporicidal, Tuberculocidal, Virucidal, Bactericidal, Fungicidal, Simulated-Use, Biocompatibility, Material Compatibility, Stability) appear to be laboratory-based studies.
- All data are prospective as they are part of a premarket notification for a new device.
3. Number of Experts and Qualifications
The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth for any of the described tests. The studies rely on established microbiological test methods (e.g., AOAC) and standard laboratory and in-use protocols rather than expert consensus on diagnostic imaging or similar subjective assessments.
4. Adjudication Method
Adjudication methods (like 2+1 or 3+1 for resolving discrepancies) are typically used in studies involving human interpretation or subjective assessment where a "ground truth" needs to be established from multiple readers. This document describes performance testing of a physical device and chemical efficacy, which relies on objective measurements (e.g., bacterial reduction, presence of residues, visual cleanliness, functional integrity) rather than subjective human interpretation. Therefore, no adjudication method as typically described in imaging studies was used or mentioned.
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study
No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document is for an automated endoscope processing system, which does not involve human readers interpreting cases or images.
6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study
The entire document describes the standalone performance of the "Reliance Endoscope Processing System," which is an automated device performing the washing and high-level disinfection process. All the performance figures reported (microbiological efficacy, cleaning efficacy, cycle performance, material compatibility) characterize the device's inherent capabilities without human intervention during the defined processing cycle (though human manual pre-cleaning and loading/unloading are explicit parts of the overall process).
7. Type of Ground Truth Used
The ground truth for the various tests was established using:
- Microbiological assays: For sporicidal, tuberculocidal, virucidal, bactericidal, fungicidal, and Mycobacterium terrae reduction (quantitative measures of organism reduction/kill).
- Visual inspection and quantitative protein assays: For cleaning efficacy (visual cleanliness and µg/cm² protein).
- Chemical analysis and cytotoxicity testing: For residue levels and biocompatibility.
- Functional and visual inspection after repeated cycles: For material compatibility.
- Analytical measurements: For critical process parameters (temperature, volume, pressure, etc.) and germicide stability.
- Clinical observation/microbiological cultures: For the in-use study (recovery of organisms).
- Standardized electrical tests: For electrical standards compliance.
8. Sample Size for the Training Set
The document focuses on validation studies, not on the development of a machine learning algorithm that would require a distinct "training set." Therefore, no training set sample size is applicable or mentioned. The device's operational parameters and design would have been developed iteratively, but not through a formal "training set" in the context of AI/ML.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
As there is no training set for an AI/ML algorithm involved, the question of how its ground truth was established is not applicable.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1