Search Results

Solcart B is intended for use in bicarbonate hemodialysis for acute and chronic renal failure, or acute intoxication with dialyzable substances.

Solcart B consists of a powder concentrate used to prepare bicarbonate concentrate solution for use in hemodialysis. Solcart B is a non-refillable polypropylene cartridge containing dry sodium bicarbonate [in compliance with European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.) and United States Pharmacopoeia (USP)] for hemodialysis. It must be used together with a suitable acid concentrate and water meeting the requirements of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI). Solcart B must only be used with B. Braun dialysis machines provided with a holder for powder bicarbonate cartridges.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Solcart B device, which is a powder concentrate for hemodialysis. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a study of the device's performance against specific acceptance criteria for attributes like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity, which is typical for diagnostic or AI-based devices.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for describing an acceptance criteria study (e.g., sample size for test set, number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study, standalone performance, training set details) are not applicable to this type of regulatory submission as they are for a medical device that simply replaces a predicate.

However, I can extract information related to the device's performance that was assessed to support its substantial equivalence.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Given that this is a 510(k) for a medical consumable (powder concentrate for hemodialysis), the "acceptance criteria" revolve around demonstrating that the device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. The performance criteria are therefore related to its fundamental function and safety characteristics, not diagnostic accuracy.

Study Information (as inferable from the document)

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

   • Sample Size: Not specified in this 510(k) summary. Given the nature of a consumable product like a powder concentrate, "sample size" would refer to the number of batches or units tested in functional, biocompatibility, and stability studies. These details are typically in the full submission, not the summary.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but typically these tests would be conducted by the manufacturer (B Braun Medizintechnologie GmbH, Germany) or their designated testing facilities in controlled laboratory environments. This would be prospective testing as part of product development and validation.

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

   • Not Applicable. This device is a consumable, and the "ground truth" relates to its chemical composition, physical properties, and functional performance, not diagnostic interpretations. These are typically assessed through laboratory tests and validated manufacturing processes according to industry standards (e.g., European Pharmacopoeia, United States Pharmacopoeia, AAMI).

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • Not Applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for human expert review in diagnostic studies. Here, performance is determined by meeting pre-defined physical, chemical, and biological criteria.

4. 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 is not a diagnostic device or an AI-powered system, so an MRMC study is irrelevant.

5. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done:

   • Not Applicable. This is not an algorithm or an AI device. The device's "standalone" performance would be its inherent functional characteristics, as assessed by the functional, biocompatibility, and stability testing mentioned.

6. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • Technical Specifications and Regulatory Standards: The "ground truth" for Solcart B is its adherence to established chemical and physical specifications (e.g., concentration of sodium bicarbonate, dissolution properties, purity) and compliance with regulatory standards for medical devices and pharmaceuticals (e.g., European Pharmacopoeia, United States Pharmacopoeia, AAMI water quality requirements). Its safety is based on biocompatibility testing, which typically refers to standard biological evaluation of medical devices (ISO 10993 series).

7. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

   • Not Applicable. This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no training set in the conventional sense. Product development and process validation would involve numerous tests, but these aren't "training sets."

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

   • Not Applicable. As there's no training set, this question is not relevant. The "ground truth" for manufacturing and quality control standards is established through pharmacopeial monographs, international standards, and internal quality systems based on scientific principles and regulatory requirements.

Ask a specific question about this device

Diacap LO PS (10, 12, 15) and Diacap HI PS (10, 12, 15, 18, 20) Hemodialyzers are designed for single use in acute and chronic hemodialysis.

The Diacap LO PS (10, 12 and 15) and Diacap HI PS (10, 12, 15, 18 and 20) are, respectively, conventional permeability and high permeability hemodialyzers. The hollow, polysulfone membrane is housed within a plastic cylinder with four ports: two ports for blood compartment access and two ports for dialysate access.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the B. Braun Medizintechnologie G.m.b.H. Diacap LO PS and HI PS Hemodialyzers. It describes the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not include detailed acceptance criteria or a study that specifically addresses device performance against stated acceptance criteria in the way typically expected for an AI/ML device where performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC) are calculated.

This document describes a medical device (hemodialyzers), not an AI/ML system. Therefore, the questions related to AI/ML device performance metrics, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and ground truth establishment in that context are not applicable.

Instead, the performance evaluation for these hemodialyzers focused on bench and clinical testing to demonstrate performance and safety, primarily in comparison to a predicate device.

Here's how to interpret the available information:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a quantitative table with thresholds. Instead, it states that the device's performance was evaluated against "expected values" and through "comparison with the predicate device".

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

• Sample size: Not specified. The document mentions "clinical testing" but does not detail the number of subjects or samples.
• Data provenance: Not specified.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

This information is not applicable and not provided. Performance evaluation for hemodialyzers does not typically involve "experts establishing ground truth" in the way an AI/ML diagnostic device would. Performance is assessed through direct measurement of physical and physiological parameters.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

Not applicable and not provided.

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 is not an AI/ML device.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

The "ground truth," in the context of a hemodialyzer, would be the direct measurement of its physical properties (e.g., surface area, membrane characteristics) and its performance in clearing solutes and removing fluid in bench and clinical settings, as well as the physiological response of patients (e.g., blood cell counts, inflammatory markers). It's based on direct measurement and observed physiological effects rather than expert consensus on diagnostic images or pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device and thus does not have a "training set" in that sense.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Diacap Ultra Dialysis Fluid Filter is intended to filter bacteria and endotoxins from dialysate used for hemodialysis treatments.

The Diacap Ultra dialysis fluid filter is sterile, non-pyrogenic dialysis fluid filter for use with machines providing hemodialysis treatments. The device is composed of a hollow core polysulfone and polyvinylpyrrolidone membrane, polycarbonate housing and headers (end-caps) with Hansen type connectors, silicone O-rings, and polyethylene port caps.

This is a 510(k) summary for the Diacap Ultra Dialysis Fluid Filter and does not contain specific details about acceptance criteria or a study proving device performance as typically understood for AI/ML-based medical devices. The document is for a medical device that filters bacteria and endotoxins from dialysate. It's a submission to the FDA seeking clearance based on substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and performance study specifics cannot be extracted directly from the provided text.

However, I can extract the information that is present:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

This information is not provided in the document. The 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than presenting specific performance data against defined acceptance criteria. For devices like filters, the "performance" would typically refer to filtration efficiency for bacteria and endotoxins, and flow rates; these are not detailed here.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

This information is not provided in the document. As this is a physical filter, "test set" would likely refer to physical testing of filters, not a data set in the AI/ML sense. No details about such testing are included.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience):

This information is not applicable/provided. This type of information is relevant for AI/ML devices where human experts establish ground truth for image interpretation, for example. For a physical filter, "ground truth" would be established through laboratory testing and measurement of filtration efficacy, not expert consensus in the typical sense.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

This information is not applicable/provided. This is a method used for establishing ground truth in AI/ML studies involving human interpretation.

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:

This information is not applicable/provided. An MRMC study is relevant for AI/ML devices that assist human readers in tasks like medical image interpretation. This document describes a physical medical filter.

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

This information is not applicable/provided. This is relevant for AI/ML algorithms.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):

This information is not provided. For a filter, ground truth would likely be established through quantitative measurements of bacterial and endotoxin removal in a laboratory setting, rather than expert consensus or pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not applicable/provided. This is relevant for AI/ML devices.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

This information is not applicable/provided. This is relevant for AI/ML devices.

Summary based on available information:

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a physical medical device (dialysis fluid filter) seeking clearance based on substantial equivalence to predicate devices. It does not contain details about specific performance studies with acceptance criteria, test sets, ground truth establishment, or human expert involvement in the way these questions apply to AI/ML or diagnostic devices.

The key information from the document related to "acceptance" is the FDA's determination of Substantial Equivalence (K052764) to predicate devices:

• K993806 Clarigen, Inc., DialGuard™
• K003957 GAMBRO® Renal Products, Dialclear™ Ultrafilter
• K983126 Minntech FibreFlo

This substantial equivalence determination means the FDA believes the Diacap Ultra Dialysis Fluid Filter is as safe and effective as the legally marketed predicate devices, and therefore "meets the acceptance criteria" in the regulatory sense for market clearance.

Ask a specific question about this device