Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K991725
    Date Cleared
    1999-07-30

    (71 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    868.5630
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Applicant Name (Manufacturer) :

    INSPIRED MEDICAL PRODUCTS LTD.

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    A hand-held nebulizer to aerosolize commonly prescribed liquid drugs (except pentamadine) for inhalation by patients in the Home, Hospital and Nursing Home settings - anywhere aerosolized drug delivery is utilized.

    Device Description

    The Inspired Medical Products Sidestream Nebulizer is identical to the Medic-Aid Sidestream Nebulizer cleared under K924123.
    Made of three components - top, baffle, base.
    Materials in contact with patient - polypropylene.
    Provided clean, non-sterile.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "Sidestream Drug Nebulizer." This type of submission is for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving safety and effectiveness through clinical trials with defined acceptance criteria and performance studies in the way an AI/ML device might.

    Therefore, the document does not contain information about acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML device. Specifically:

    • It does not mention a test set, training set, ground truth, expert consensus, MRMC studies, or standalone performance results.
    • It does not involve detailed performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy that would be associated with AI/ML diagnostic tools.

    Instead, the document's purpose is to demonstrate that the new "Sidestream Drug Nebulizer" is substantially equivalent to existing predicate devices (Medic-Aid Sidestream Nebulizers K924123 and K914152B) based on comparable intended use, environment of use, patient population, design, materials, and performance standards. The key finding is stated as: "There are no differences in performance, safety, or efficacy between the intended device and the predicates."

    If this were an AI/ML device, the acceptance criteria and study information would be crucial. However, for this traditional medical device submission, the "study" is a comparison to predicates, and the "acceptance criteria" are satisfied by demonstrating this substantial equivalence.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1