Search Results

The AccuCath™ Intravascular Catheter is inserted into a patient's vascular system to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids intravenously. This device may be used with consideration given to adequacy of vascular anatomy, appropriateness of the solution being infused, and duration of therapy. The AccuCath™ IV Catheter is suitable for use with power injectors.

The AccuCath™ Intravascular Catheter has usable length catheters of 1.25 and 2.25 inches in 18, 20, and 22 gauge sizes. The devices are single use, sterile intravascular catheters designed to be inserted into a patient's vascular system to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids intravenously. The AccuCath™ IV Catheter's hub has a built in blood control septum. The blood control feature is a single-use septum that automatically activates to stop the blood flow in the catheter hub when the needle is removed from the catheter during initial insertion by the clinician. Blood flow from the catheter hub will be restricted immediately after needle retraction until a secure luer connection is made. The flow path is permanently opened once a secure luer connection has been made. The AccuCath™ IV Catheter is provided with a safety mechanism which allows the needle to be shielded following placement of the catheter. All devices have the basic structure of a protective cover, a catheter with a luer lock fitting, a needle connected to a flashback chamber, a safety container, and a guidewire within the lumen of the needle which is connected to a slider, spring and release button.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the AccuCath™ Intravascular Catheter. It is a submission to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, not a study evaluating the performance of an AI/ML device against acceptance criteria.

The document does not contain any information about a study proving a device meets acceptance criteria in the context of AI/ML performance metrics such as accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating that a modification to a previously cleared medical device (an intravascular catheter) is substantially equivalent to its predicate.

Specifically:

• It describes a traditional medical device (intravascular catheter), not an AI/ML device.
• The "Performance Tests" section explicitly states that "no verification or validation activities were required" and "it is not necessary to conduct additional performance tests including verification and validation" because the changes are limited to labeling modifications and do not impact design, materials, performance, or risk profile.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information as it is not present in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

Catheter stylets provide internal reinforcement to aid in catheter placement. When used with the Sherlock 3CG® Tip Confirmation System (TCS), the Sherlock 3CG® TPS Stylet also provides the placer rapid feedback on catheter tip location and orientation through the use of passive magnets and cardiac electrical signal detection.

Bard Access Systems, Inc.'s Sherlock 3CG® Tip Positioning System (TPS) Stylet is a sterile, single use device 0.49 mm (0.019 in) outer diameter x 78.5 cm, made of specially-formulated materials designed to aid in the placement of specific Bard catheters, as well as any open-ended, non-valved, polyurethane, peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) that meet the dimensional specifications of the stylet. The Sherlock 3CG® TPS Stylet is designed to work with catheters containing a minimum lumen diameter of 0.51mm (0.020 in). The stylet provides internal reinforcement to aid in catheter placement. The Sherlock 3CG® TPS Stylet may be used with the Sherlock 3CG® Tip Confirmation System (TCS) to provide catheter tip placement information during the procedure.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Sherlock 3CG® Tip Positioning System (TPS) Stylet. It outlines the intended use, technological characteristics, and safety and performance tests. However, it does not contain the detailed acceptance criteria and study results in the format requested.

The document indicates that "Verification and validation tests have been performed in accordance with Design Controls as per 21 CFR §820.30" and that "The subject devices met all predetermined acceptance criteria derived from the above listed references and demonstrated substantially equivalent performance as compared to the cited predicate devices." However, it does not explicitly state what those predetermined acceptance criteria were, nor does it provide specific reported device performance metrics against them.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer most of your detailed questions directly from the provided text.

Here's what can be extracted and what cannot:

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

• Cannot be provided. The document states that the devices met predetermined acceptance criteria, but it does not list these criteria or specific performance values. Instead, it lists technical standards and guidance documents (e.g., BS/EN/ISO 10555-1: 1997, ISO 594-2: 1998, AAMI/ANSI/ISO 11135-1:2007) that were used to determine appropriate methods for evaluating performance. It also mentions risk management according to ISO 14971:2012.

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

• Cannot be provided. The document mentions "Verification and validation tests" but provides no details on sample size, data provenance, or whether the study was retrospective or prospective.

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)

• Not applicable/Cannot be provided. This device is a stylet for a catheter tip positioning system, which uses passive magnets and cardiac electrical signal detection for feedback on catheter tip location. The ground truth for such a device would likely involve direct physical measurement or imaging confirmation (e.g., X-ray) of the catheter tip, not expert review of images for diagnosis. The document does not describe the establishment of a ground truth by experts in this context.

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

• Not applicable/Cannot be provided. As above, the nature of the device and the information provided do not suggest an adjudication method for a test set, which is typically relevant for interpretative tasks often involving human expert readers.

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

• Cannot be provided. The document does not mention an MRMC study. This device is an accessory to a positioning system, which is a tool to aid in placement, not an AI for interpretation that would typically require an MRMC study to evaluate reader improvement.

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

• Cannot be directly answered. The device is described as a "stylet" that "provides the placer rapid feedback." This implies it works with human-in-the-loop (the placer). The document doesn't detail the performance of the "Sherlock 3CG® Tip Confirmation System (TCS)" itself, only the stylet which is an accessory to it. The stylet's function is to provide internal reinforcement and, when used with the TCS, enables the system to provide tip location feedback.

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

• Cannot be determined from the text. The document does not specify how the accuracy of the catheter tip location detected by the Sherlock 3CG® TCS (when used with the stylet) was validated or what "ground truth" method was employed for this validation.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable/Cannot be provided. As this is not an AI/machine learning device in the context of image interpretation or diagnosis (it's a physical medical device accessory), the concept of a "training set" is not relevant in the sense of data used to train an algorithm.

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

• Not applicable/Cannot be provided. For the same reason as above.

In summary, the provided document is a regulatory submission summary focusing on the equivalence of the device to a predicate based on technological characteristics and general safety/performance testing protocols. It does not contain the detailed study results or acceptance criteria in the requested format.

Ask a specific question about this device