HydroMID 5F Dual Lumen Midline Catheter - Basic Kit (70006102); HydroMID 5F Dual Lumen Midline Catheter - Max Barrier Kit (70006104); HydroMID 5F Dual Lumen Midline Catheter - Mobile Max Barrier Kit (90006104)

• K Number: K244059
• Device Name: HydroMID 5F Dual Lumen Midline Catheter - Basic Kit (70006102); HydroMID 5F Dual Lumen Midline Catheter - Max Barrier Kit (70006104); HydroMID 5F Dual Lumen Midline Catheter - Mobile Max Barrier Kit (90006104)
• Manufacturer: Access Vascular, Inc.
• Date Cleared: 2025-03-27 ( 86 days)
• Product Code: FOZ
• Regulation Number: 880.5200
• Type: Special
• Panel: HO
• Reference & Predicate Devices: K213550 , K220772

Intended Use

The HydroMID 5F Dual Lumen Midline Catheter is indicated for short term access (

Device Description

The HydroMID catheter is a 5 French, dual lumen, midline catheter comprised of a radiopaque, hydrophilic catheter with a suture wing, Luer lock hub, and extension tubing made from materials commonly used in the manufacture of catheters. Catheters are provided packaged in kit configurations with the appropriate accessories for placement in the respective clinical environments.

HydroMID has been shown to be effective in reducing thrombus accumulation and thrombotic occlusions. Reduction of thrombus accumulation and thrombotic occlusions were evaluated using in vitro and in vivo models. Pre-clinical in vivo evaluations do not necessarily predict clinical performance with respect to thrombus formation.

Catheter and accessories are supplied sterile. Product is sterilized by ethylene oxide (EO) except where labeled otherwise. Product should be stored in a cool, dry, dark place. The HydroMID Catheter is supplied in a dry state and must be hydrated before use.

AI/ML Overview

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the HydroMID 5F Dual Lumen Midline Catheter. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through bench testing. The document does not contain information about a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/human reader study or clinical performance with ground truth established by experts/pathology/outcomes data.

The "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in this document refer to engineering and performance bench testing of a physical medical device (a catheter), not a medical device software or AI algorithm. Therefore, many of the requested categories in the prompt (e.g., number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC study, standalone algorithm performance, training set details) are not applicable to this type of device submission.

However, I can extract the information relevant to the device's performance and the "acceptance criteria" as described in the 510(k) summary for this physical medical device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Bench Testing):

The document states: "All tests passed the acceptance criteria specified for both the subject and predicate devices." It does not provide specific numerical acceptance criteria or numerical reported performance values for each test. Instead, it lists the types of tests conducted.

Test Type	Acceptance Criteria (General Statement)	Reported Device Performance (General Statement)
Power injection flow rate	Not explicitly detailed, but implied to meet an acceptable standard.	Passed; supports a 6ml/s rating (higher than predicate's 3.5ml/s).
Static burst strength	Not explicitly detailed, but implied to meet an acceptable standard.	Passed.
Catheter length	Not explicitly detailed, but implied to meet an acceptable standard.	Passed.
Dimensional verification	Not explicitly detailed, but implied to meet an acceptable standard.	Passed.
Catheter kink/resistance	Not explicitly detailed, but implied to meet an acceptable standard.	Passed.
Tensile (tubing and joint)	Not explicitly detailed, but implied to meet an acceptable standard.	Passed.
Particulate	Not explicitly detailed, but implied to meet an acceptable standard.	Passed.
Packaging distribution	Not explicitly detailed, but implied to meet an acceptable standard.	Passed.
Sterility	Not explicitly detailed, but implied to meet an acceptable standard.	Passed. (Sterilized by ethylene oxide, as stated in Device Description)
MR compatibility	Not explicitly detailed, but implied to meet an acceptable standard (MRI Conditional).	Passed. (MRI Conditional)
Shelf-life	Not explicitly detailed, but implied to meet an acceptable standard.	Passed. (Performance demonstrated at T=0 and over shelf life).

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

• Sample Size: The document states: "Testing was identical to the predicate in standard conformance, sample size, methods, and acceptance criteria." However, the specific numerical sample size for each test is not provided.
• Data Provenance: The tests are described as "Bench Data" conducted internally by the manufacturer, Access Vascular Inc. The country of origin for the data is not explicitly stated, but the company address is Billerica, MA, which implies the testing was conducted in the United States. The data is prospective in the sense that it was generated for this 510(k) submission to demonstrate the performance of the new device design.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device. Ground truth for its performance is established by engineering and material science testing against predefined specifications, not by human expert review of images or clinical outcomes in the typical sense of AI/image analysis.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not Applicable. See point 3. Testing results are objective measurements against established engineering standards.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, and the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs. without AI assistance:

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device (catheter), not a software or AI device intended to assist human readers.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Engineering Specifications and Standardized Test Methods: The "ground truth" for this device's performance revolves around its physical and functional properties meeting predetermined engineering specifications and validated test methods (e.g., pressure resistance, flow rates, dimensional accuracy, material properties like tensile strength and kink resistance, sterility, and MRI compatibility). These are objective criteria, not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in a clinical trial sense.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device; there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning. The device design and materials are based on established engineering principles and prior device iterations.

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

• Not Applicable. See point 8.

Regulation Number and Section

§ 880.5200 Intravascular catheter.

(a)
Identification. An intravascular catheter is a device that consists of a slender tube and any necessary connecting fittings and that is inserted into the patient's vascular system for short term use (less than 30 days) to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids intravenously. The device may be constructed of metal, rubber, plastic, or a combination of these materials.(b)
Classification. Class II (performance standards).