Search Results

The Kawasumi Multiple Sample Adapter with Pr-Attached Holder (MBCH) is a sterile, non-invasive device used for connection with a female luer system and non-needle devices in order to collect blood specimen to blood collection tube.

The Kawasumi Multiple Sample Adapter with Pre-Attached Holder (MBCH) is a sterile, singleuse device consisting of a plastic holder with a non-patient contacting stainless steel cannula covered with a rubber sheath and a male luer adapter which is attached into the holder. This device is used to collect blood specimen by connecting to female luer connectors of vascular access devices such as peripheral, central catheter, Huber needle, etc. As this device can be connected to various devices with female luer adapter, it is called "multiple sample adapter".

When blood is collected, the blood collection tube is placed over the cannula, pushing the rubber sheath back, allowing blood flow. After obtaining the correct amount of blood, the blood collection tube is removed from the holder. When the blood collection tube is removed, the rubber sheath extends back over the cannula and stopping blood flow. Blood collection may be continued by connecting additional blood collection tubes, if required.

The device is sterilized using Ethylene Oxide. The device is a prescription-use device intended to be used in hospitals or healthcare facilities.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, focusing on the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the requested information.

It's important to note that this document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (blood specimen collection adapter), not an AI/ML software device. Therefore, many of the typical questions for an AI/ML device, such as those related to AI model training, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance, are not applicable to this type of submission. The 'device' here refers to a physical, non-digital product.

Acceptance Criteria and Study Proving Device Performance

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

The document doesn't provide a direct "acceptance criteria" table with specific quantitative limits for each test. Instead, it describes various performance tests conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence (SE) to a predicate device. The general acceptance criterion for all tests is "meets design requirements and specifications" and "confirm performance," ultimately aiming to show comparable function and performance to the predicate device, thereby demonstrating substantial equivalence in terms of safety and effectiveness.

Here's an interpretation based on the "Non-Clinical Testing" section and "Technological Characteristics" comparison, outlining the tests performed to demonstrate that the device meets its design requirements and is substantially equivalent:

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Sample Size: The document does not explicitly state the numerical sample size (e.g., number of devices) used for each individual test. It lists the types of tests performed. For physical device testing, sample sizes are typically determined by relevant ISO standards or internal quality protocols.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. Given the "Kawasumi Laboratories, Inc." address in Tokyo, Japan, it is highly likely that testing was performed by or for the manufacturer, potentially in Japan or at contract labs globally.
• Retrospective or Prospective: These are non-clinical, controlled laboratory tests on manufactured devices, so the terms "retrospective" or "prospective" as they apply to clinical studies or real-world data collection are not applicable.

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

• This is a review of a physical medical device. The "ground truth" is established through engineering and laboratory testing against established physical, chemical, and biological standards (e.g., ISO, USP, ASTM). It does not involve human expert interpretation of data in the way an AI/ML device would. Therefore, the concept of "experts establishing ground truth" in this context is not applicable.

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

• Not applicable for a physical device undergoing laboratory testing. This concept is relevant for human interpretation tasks, often in AI/ML performance evaluations.

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 a physical blood collection device, not an AI/ML radiology or diagnostic aid. MRMC studies are for evaluating diagnostic accuracy with and without AI assistance.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an algorithm or software device.

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

• The "ground truth" for this device's performance is defined by adherence to established international standards (ISO, ASTM, USP) for physical properties, chemical properties, sterility, biocompatibility, and functional performance of medical devices. The predicate device's performance also serves as a benchmark for comparative testing to demonstrate equivalence.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no "training set."

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

• Not applicable. As above, there is no "training set" for a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The K-Shield Advantage Port Access Infusion Set (PAIS) is a safety port access device used to administer solutions to surgically implanted port.

The K-Shield Advantage Port Access Infusion Set (PAIS) is a safety port access device used to administer solutions to a surgically implanted port. This device is designed utilizing a non-coring Huber needle to access the implanted port. The K-Shield Advantage PAIS has an integral safety device intended to protect against accidental needle stick injuries and infection caused by blood borne pathogens. Upon removal from the port, the anti-needlestick protector (ANSP) covers the needle tip protecting against accidental needle stick injuries. The devices are disposable ethylene oxide sterilized medical devices which are constructed from non-coring needle (Huber needle), wing, tubing (either micro bore or standard bore), clamp, female conical fitting and locking cap. The device has optional injection site (needle injection, needleless access connector (NAC), or no injection site) and anti-needle stick protector (ANSP).

The K-Shield Advantage Port Access Infusion Set (PAIS) is a safety device used to administer solutions to surgically implanted ports. The device was modified from a previously cleared version (K123344), with minor enhancements to strengthen the safety device feature, improve the gripping point for easy cannulation, and reduce the bulkiness of the needle cap.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance (Test Set):

• Needle Cap Evaluation: N=30 for each cap type (straw cap and T-cap). The data provenance is not explicitly stated but is implicitly from bench testing conducted by Kawasumi Laboratories, Inc.
• Simulated Use Testing: N=599 "effective samples." Data provenance is from simulated use testing conducted by Kawasumi Laboratories, Inc.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The tests performed are primarily bench and simulated use tests based on established international and in-house standards, not expert assessments of performance.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

This information is not applicable as the tests are objective measurements against defined criteria, not subjective human assessments requiring adjudication.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device is a physical medical device (infusion set), not an imaging or diagnostic AI device that would typically involve human readers.

6. Standalone (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) study:

No, a standalone study was not done. This refers to algorithmic performance, which is not relevant for a physical medical device. The "standalone" concept applies to AI/software as a medical device (SaMD).

7. Type of ground truth used (test set):

The "ground truth" for the test set is established by objective technical standards and in-house criteria for physical performance characteristics (e.g., tensile strength, leak test, cap removal force) and functional activation (ANSP). For the simulated use testing, the ground truth is the observable proper activation of the ANSP.

8. Sample size for the training set:

This information is not applicable. This device is a physical product, not an AI/machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

This information is not applicable, as there is no training set for a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Blood Drawing Kit with Antineedle Stick Protector is a single use, sterile transfer set designed for vascular access for blood withdrawal. Use of the Needleless Access Connector allows the clinician needle-free blood withdrawal when blood sampling is required. The Antineedle Stick Protector is an integral, active safety device intended to minimize accidental needle stick injuries when used to shield needles. This device is not intended for blood transfusion.

The Kawasumi Laboratories Blood Drawing Kit (BDK) System is a therapeutic device used to access a patient's vein for blood removal from the patient to a blood bag reservoir to aid in the treatment of a disease or other condition. The device is not intended for blood transfusion. The Kawasumi Laboratories Blood Drawing Kit (BDK) System consists of a Blood Drawing Kit device that is designed with an integral Antineedle Stick Protector that provides a safety feature intended to minimize accidental needle stick injuries when the device is activated during removal from the patient's vein and may incorporate a needleless access connector site used for blood sampling. The Blood Drawing Kit System is a single use, disposable Ethylene Oxide Sterilized medical device. The Kawasumi Laboratories Blood Drawing Kit (BDK) System is a sterile, single-use device that consists of the following components: Needle Protector, Cannula, Hub, Wing, Antineedle Stick Protector "K-Shield", Tubing, Needleless Access Connector (NAC) Y-Site, Clamp, Blood Bag Unit Reservoir.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Kawasumi Laboratories Blood Drawing Kit (BDK) System. It lists various non-clinical performance tests conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device, but it does not include acceptance criteria or reported device performance in a table format, nor does it detail a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the way typically expected for an AI/ML device.

The document focuses on demonstrating that the new device is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared device (K001043) by showing similar technological characteristics and by conducting standard performance and biocompatibility tests for medical devices. It does not describe a study that uses a 'test set' with 'ground truth' established by experts, as would be relevant for an AI/ML device's performance evaluation.

Therefore, many of the requested details (like sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set size, and ground truth establishment for training) are not applicable to the information provided in this document, which pertains to a traditional medical device (a blood drawing kit) rather than an AI/ML-powered one.

However, I can extract the information provided about the non-clinical performance testing which serves as the "study" for this device, and list the categories of tests that were performed.

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

The document does not provide a table of acceptance criteria with specific numerical targets and corresponding reported device performance values. Instead, it lists categories of non-clinical tests that were performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence. The implication is that the device passed these tests, thereby meeting the implicit acceptance criteria for each test type, which are typically defined by the referenced standards.

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

The document does not specify
sample sizes for the individual non-clinical performance tests nor the data provenance. These tests are typically conducted in a laboratory setting by the manufacturer or a contract research organization.

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. The device is a traditional physical medical device (blood drawing kit), not an AI/ML device that requires expert-established ground truth for a test set.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device for which adjudication methods for expert disagreement would be relevant.

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 a traditional medical device; MRMC studies relate to AI/ML image interpretation or diagnostic tools.

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

Not applicable. This is a traditional medical device; standalone algorithm performance is relevant for AI/ML devices.

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

For a blood drawing kit, "ground truth" would relate to meeting physical, chemical, and biological performance specifications outlined in recognized standards. This is demonstrated through objective laboratory testing rather than expert consensus on diagnostic outcomes. The "ground truth" is adherence to established engineering and medical device standards.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a traditional medical device, not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. This is a traditional medical device, not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The devices are used to administer solutions to a surgically implanted port.

The K-Shield Advantage Port Access Infusion Set (PAIS) is a safety port access device used to administer solutions to a surgically implanted port. This device is designed utilizing a non-coring Huber needle to access the implanted port. The K-Shield Advantage PAIS has an integral safety device intended to protect against accidental needle stick injuries and infection caused by blood borne pathogens. Upon removal from the port, the Anti- Needlestick Protector (ANSP) covers the needle tip protecting against accidental needle stick injuries. The devices are disposable ethylene oxide sterilized medical devices which are constructed from non-coring needle (Huber needle), wing, tubing (either micro bore or standard bore), clamp, female conical fitting and locking cap. The device has optional injection site (needle injection, needleless access connector (NAC), or no injection site) and/or anti-needlestick protector (ANSP).

The provided 510(k) summary for the K-Shield Advantage Port Access Infusion Set (K123344) does not contain the specific acceptance criteria or a detailed study proving the device meets those criteria in the format requested.

The summary describes the device, its intended use, and states that "Bench testing was performed and confirms that the device meets design requirements and specifications." It also mentions compliance with EN ISO 8536-4:2007. However, it does not provide a table of quantitative acceptance criteria, detailed performance metrics, or the specifics of the bench testing study (like sample size, ground truth establishment, or expert involvement) that would allow for a complete answer to your request.

Therefore, I cannot extract the information required to populate the table and answer the specific questions about the study design, sample sizes, expert involvement, or adjudication methods, as this level of detail is not present in the provided text.

Based solely on the provided text, here's what information can be gleaned, though it is limited:

Summary of Available Information Regarding Performance and Testing:

• Acceptance Criteria/Performance: The document broadly states that the device "meets design requirements and specifications" and "complies with the International standard EN ISO 8536-4: 2007-Infusion equipment for medical use -Part 4: Infusion sets for single use, gravity feed mainly". No specific quantitative acceptance criteria or performance metrics are listed in a table.
• Study Type: "Bench testing was performed."
• Safety Feature: The device includes an "Anti-Needlestick Protector (ANSP)" intended to "protect against accidental needle stick injuries." While this is a key safety feature, the document doesn't provide performance data for it (e.g., efficacy rates of the ANSP).
• Biocompatibility: Materials are evaluated per ISO 10993-1:2009 and "have been determined to be biocompatible."
• Sterilization: Validation was conducted per EN ISO 11135-1:2007.

Missing Information:

All the specific points you requested (Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance, sample size for test set, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication method, MRMC study details, standalone study details, type of ground truth, training set sample size, ground truth for training set) are not present in the provided 510(k) summary. These details are typically part of a more extensive test report that would be submitted to the FDA but are often summarized or omitted from the public 510(k) summary document itself.

Ask a specific question about this device

The K-Shield Port Access Infusion Set with High Pressure Tubing is an intravascular administration set with a non-coring Huber needle that is used to access an implanted medication port for solution infusion and blood sampling. The high pressure tubing allows for the injection of contrast media with a power injector to 300 psi into an implanted port indicated for use with a power injector. The device is supplied sterile, non-pyrogenic and for single use. The port access infusion sets are designed with an integral antineedle stick protector that provides a safety feature intended to minimize accidental needle stick injuries when the needle is activated during removal from the patient's implanted medication port.

The K-Shield Port Access Infusion Set with High Pressure Tubing is a sterile, single use device with a non-coring Huber needle (90 degree), non-DEHP polyvinyl chloride tubing with or without Y connector which incorporates an integral antineedle stick protector used to prevent accidental needlestick injuries. The set can withstand injection pressures to 300 psi for use with power injectors to inject contrast media into implanted ports designed for use with power injectors.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Kawasumi Laboratories Port Access Infusion Set with High Pressure Tubing, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document describes non-clinical testing data to determine the safety and effectiveness of the high-pressure tubing and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The acceptance criteria are implied by the "Pass" result for each test, indicating the device successfully met the established standards.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not explicitly state the sample size used for each specific test. For non-clinical tests like material and performance evaluations, typically multiple samples are subjected to each test.
• Data Provenance: The tests were performed internally by Kawasumi Laboratories, or according to international standards (ISO, ASTM, ISTA, EN). The country of origin for the studies is implied to be Japan, where Kawasumi Laboratories, Inc. is based, or potentially other locations if testing was outsourced. The data is retrospective in the sense that it was generated prior to the 510(k) submission, but it represents prospective testing conducted to evaluate the device's performance.

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

This section is largely not applicable as the studies described are non-clinical engineering and materials tests, not studies involving human subjects or expert assessment of clinical images/diagnoses. The "ground truth" for these tests is defined by the specific parameters and requirements of the international standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM) and Kawasumi's internal validation protocols. No human experts were involved in establishing "ground truth" in the way understood for medical diagnostic devices.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

This section is not applicable as the tests are objective, pass/fail engineering and material science evaluations against defined standards. There is no subjective interpretation or need for 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:

This is not applicable. The device is an infusion set with high-pressure tubing, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive technology. Therefore, no MRMC study was conducted, and the concept of "human readers improve with AI" does not apply.

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

This is not applicable. The device is a physical medical device (infusion set), not an algorithm or software. No standalone algorithm performance study was done.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests is based on:

• Defined Standards and Specifications: The reference to ISO, ASTM, ISTA, and EN standards indicates that the ground truth is the performance criteria established within these internationally recognized specifications.
• Engineering Specifications: Kawasumi's internal tests (flow rate, pinch clamp pressure) would have had pre-defined, measurable specifications as their ground truth.
• Essentially, the ground truth is quantifiable, objective measurements against established benchmarks for material properties, pressure resistance, and functionality.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

This is not applicable. As a physical medical device, there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. The design and manufacturing processes are validated against established engineering principles and standards.

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

This is not applicable for the reasons stated above. The "ground truth" for the device's design and manufacturing is established through adherence to recognized engineering standards, material science principles, and quality control processes, not through a "training set" with established ground truth in the AI sense.

Ask a specific question about this device

(1) The K-Shield Arterial Venous Fistula Set with Antineedle Stick Protector is a single use, sterile set designed for vascular access for dialysis. The antineedle stick protector is an integral, active safety device intended to minimize accidental needle stick injuries when used to shield needles.

(2) The K-Shield Blood Drawing Kit with Antineedle Stick Protector is a single use, sterile set designed for vascular access for blood withdrawal. The antineedle stick protector is an integral, active safety device intended to minimize accidental needle stick injuries when used to shield needles

(3) The K-Shield Phlebotomy Set with Antineedle Stick Protector is a single use, sterile set designed for vascular access for blood withdrawal. The antineedle stick device is an integral, active safety device intended to minimize accidental needles stick injuries when used to shield needles

Name: Kawasumi A.V. Fistula Set

Intended Use: This device is intended to be used to access a vein or artery and to be used as a conduit to connect to blood tubing lines for performing patient hemodialysis. The device is designed with an integral antineedle stick protector that provides a safety feature intended to minimize accidental needle stick injuries when the device is activated during removal from the patient's vein or artery.

Name: Kawasumi Laboratory Blood Drawing Kit

Intended Use: This is a therapeutic device used to access a patient's vein for blood removal from the patient to a blood bag reservoir to aid in the treatment of a disease or other condition. This device is not intended for blood transfusions. The device is designed with an integral antineedle stick protector that provides a safety feature intended to minimize accidental needle stick injuries when the device is activated during removal from the patient's vein.

Name: Kawasumi Laboratories Phlebotomy Set

Intended Use: This device is intended to be used to access a patient's vein and as a monduit for blood removal to a vacuum bottle to aid in the treatment of a disease or other condition. The device is designed with an integral antineedle stick protector that provides a safety feature intended to minimize accidental needle stick injuries when the device is activated during removal from the patient's vein.

The K-Shield Arterial Venous Fistula Set with Antineedle Stick Protector, K-Shield Blood Drawing Kit with Antineedle Stick Protector, and K-Shield Phlebotomy Set with Antineedle Stick Protector are sterile, single use devices commonly used to access a patient's vascular system for dialysis and blood withdrawal. The K-Shield Arterial Venous Fistula Set with Antineedle Stick Protector and K-Shield Phlebotomy Set with Antineedle Stick Protector devices are comprised of a needle and wing assembly with tubing and a female luer connector. The K-Shield Blood Drawing Kit is comprised of a needle and wing assembly, tubing and a blood collection bag. The devices incorporate an integral antineedle stick protector used to prevent accidental needlestick injuries.

The provided document describes modifications to existing devices (K-Shield Arterial Venous Fistula Set, K-Shield Blood Drawing Kit, and K-Shield Phlebotomy Set with Antineedle Stick Protector) and their substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than an AI/ML device that requires performance metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity against specific acceptance criteria.

The document focuses on non-clinical testing for safety and effectiveness, particularly related to the anti-needle stick protector mechanism. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding AI/ML device performance, such as sample sizes for test sets, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training set details, is not applicable or available in this document.

However, I can extract the relevant acceptance criteria and results from the non-clinical testing described.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Non-Applicable Information for this Device (as per the provided document):

The following information is typically relevant for AI/ML device studies, but is not provided or not applicable to this 510(k) submission which describes a modification to a medical device with an anti-needle stick protector:

• Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not specified for the internal tests. The "simulated use study" doesn't provide a quantitative sample size for users. No mention of data provenance (country, retrospective/prospective) for these types of engineering tests.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. The ground truth for these tests is defined by the physical function of the device (e.g., whether the wing activates, deactivates, or the locking mechanism can be defeated).
• Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable for these engineering tests.
• 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 as this is not an AI/ML diagnostic device.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a physical device.
• The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): The ground truth for the "PASS" results is based on the device's mechanical function meeting design specifications. For the simulated use study, the ground truth was the absence of needle sticks and user feedback.
• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. No AI/ML model.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. No AI/ML model.

Summary of the Study:

The study described is a series of non-clinical bench tests and a simulated use study to ensure the modified anti-needle stick protector functions correctly and does not introduce new safety concerns. The "study" aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, focusing on the mechanical and safety features of the device rather than diagnostic accuracy or human performance improvement.

Ask a specific question about this device

This device is intended to be used to access a vein or artery and to be used as a conduit to connect to blood tubing lines for performing patient hemodialysis. The device is designed with an integral antineedle stick protector that provides a safety feature intended to minimize accidental needle stick injuries when the device is activated during removal from the patient's vein or artery.

This is a therapeutic device used to access a patient's vein for blood removal from the patient to a blood bag reservoir to aid in the treatment of a disease or other condition. This device is not intended for blood transfusions. The device is designed with an integral antineedle stick protector that provides a safety feature intended to minimize accidental needle stick injuries when the device is activated during removal from the patient's vein.

This device is intended to be used to access a patient's vein and as a conduit for blood removal to a vacuum bottle to aid in the treatment of a disease or other condition. The device is designed with an integral antineedle stick protector that provides a safety feature intended to minimize accidental needle stick injures when the device is activated during removal from the patient's vein.

The design of the three previously cleared to market 510(k) devices has not changed except to add the integral antineedle stick protector. The antineedle stick protector is a polymeric device designed to be used integral with the wing and needle and shields the needle when the needle with hub and wing assembly is removed from the patient

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for "Winged Needle Sets with an Antineedle Stick Protector." This is a medical device and not an AI/ML algorithm, so many of the requested criteria regarding AI model performance, ground truth, and expert evaluation are not applicable.

However, I can extract information related to the device's performance study and acceptance criteria as described for this type of medical device submission.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Explanation of "Acceptance Criteria (Implied)": The document doesn't explicitly list "acceptance criteria" but rather describes the desired function and comparative performance against predicate devices, which serve as the de facto acceptance goals for a 510(k) submission for substantial equivalence.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The document refers to "a successful simulated use study," but does not provide the number of units tested or trial participants (if any).
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated. The study was conducted by "Kawasumi Laboratories." It is likely an internal study. The document does not specify country of origin or whether it was retrospective or prospective, but a simulated use study would typically be prospective for testing a new device feature.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML diagnostic system that requires expert-established ground truth for image or data interpretation. The "ground truth" here is the physical performance and safety of the device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. This refers to consensus among experts, which is not relevant for a physical device performance test. The "adjudication" would be based on objective performance measurements during the simulated use study.

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 algorithm.

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

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

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device's performance study is primarily its ability to physically prevent accidental needlestick injuries and its functional equivalence to predicate devices. This would be established through:

• Objective Performance Metrics: Measuring the effectiveness of the anti-needlestick protector during simulated use (e.g., successful activation rate, needle encapsulation success).
• Design and Material Conformance: Ensuring the device's design, materials, and manufacturing meet specified standards and are comparable to predicate devices.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Kawasumi Laboratories Empty Solution Container is a sterile, single use device used as a reservoir for the purpose of administering solution to a patient. The Empty Solution Container is filled with the desired solution(s) commonly used in hospitals. After use, the bag is discarded.

The device comprises of a plastic bag with an entry port used for the introduction of solution(s) into the bag and two ports for accessing the bag with a solution administration set

The Kawasumi Laboratories Empty Solution Container is a Class II device (product code KPE) intended as a sterile, single-use reservoir for administering solutions to patients in a hospital setting. The device is a plastic bag with an entry port for introducing solutions and two ports for accessing the bag with a solution administration set.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study data provided:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Sizes and Data Provenance

• Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The submission mentions "biocompatibility tests" and "pyrogenicity test requirements" were conducted, implying testing on representative device samples, but the specific number of units tested is not provided.
• Data Provenance: The studies were conducted by Kawasumi Laboratories. Given the company's location (3-28-15 Minami-Ohi Shinagawa-Ku, Tokyo 140 Japan), the testing was likely conducted in Japan, or under their supervision, to comply with regulatory requirements for their market submission to the FDA in the US. The data is retrospective relative to the submission date.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• This device is a physical medical device, not a diagnostic algorithm. The "ground truth" for its performance is established through standard laboratory and material science testing protocols rather than expert clinical review. Therefore, this section is not applicable in the context of this device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. As stated above, this device's performance is verified through laboratory testing, not through expert consensus or adjudication of diagnostic findings.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• No. This is a physical medical device (an empty solution container), not an AI/algorithm-based diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC study is not applicable.

6. Standalone Performance Study

• Yes, implicitly. The biocompatibility and pyrogenicity tests, along with the assessment of performance and technological characteristics, represent standalone performance evaluation of the device itself. The objective was to demonstrate that the device, on its own, meets safety and functional requirements and is substantially equivalent to a predicate device.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Standardized Laboratory Testing and Material Science Data: The "ground truth" for this device's safety and performance is based on the results of validated biocompatibility tests (e.g., cytotoxicity, sensitization, irritation) and pyrogenicity tests, conducted according to established international or national standards for medical devices. The functional "ground truth" is based on the device's ability to safely hold and facilitate the administration of solutions, as demonstrated by its "performance characteristics" (e.g., integrity, leak resistance – implied by the claim of no new characteristics compared to the predicate).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This device is a physical product and does not involve AI or machine learning, thus there is no "training set."

9. How Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Not applicable. As there is no training set, this question is irrelevant to the device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Port Access Infusion Set with Antineedle Stick Protector is a safety intravascular administration set with a non-coring Huber needle that is used to access an implanted medication port for solution infusion and blood sampling. The port access infusion sets are designed with an integral antineedle stick protector that provides a safety feature intended to minimize accidental needle stick injuries when the needle is activated during removal from the patient's implanted medication port.

The Port Access Infusion Set with Antineedle Stick Protector is sterile, single use device with a non-coring Huber needle (90 degree), non-DEHP polyvinyl chloride tubing with or without Y connector or a needleless access connector which incorporates an integral antineedle stick protector used to prevent accidental needlestick injuries. The device is used for accessing an implanted medication port by puncturing the septum of the medication port and is used for the delivery of medication and for blood sampling. Fluid administration through the non-DEHP polyvinyl chloride fluid pathway of the port access infusion set are those generally used in hospitals and for delivery of chemotherapy. The device includes an integral antineedle stick device that when used prevent clinician's needle stick injuries.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Kawasumi Laboratories Port Access Infusion Set with Antineedle Stick Protector (K060580). This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than independently proving safety and effectiveness through extensive clinical trials. Therefore, the information provided for acceptance criteria and studies is limited and different from what would be expected for a novel device requiring a PMA (Premarket Approval).

Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for simulated use study or clinical evaluation.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The studies appear to have been conducted by Kawasumi Laboratories. Given they are based in Japan with a U.S. agent, the studies could have been conducted in either region. The studies were likely prospective as they were specifically conducted for this submission.

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

This information is not provided in the document. The "simulated use study" and "clinically evaluated" phrases do not detail the methodology for expert involvement or ground truth establishment.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

This information is not provided in the document.

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:

• No MRMC study or AI component: This device is a physical medical device (infusion set with a safety mechanism), not an AI/software device. Therefore, an MRMC study or AI-related effectiveness is not applicable and was not performed.

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

• Not applicable: As noted above, this is a physical device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For Biocompatibility and Pyrogenicity: Established by laboratory test standards and methodologies for these specific tests (e.g., ISO standards for biocompatibility).
• For Antineedle Stick Protector Efficacy: Based on the results of the "simulated use study" and "clinical evaluation." The specific "ground truth" for these would likely be defined by the study protocols themselves, such as absence of needlestick injuries in the simulated tasks or real-world use for the clinical evaluation. The document states the device was found "acceptable for use to minimize accidental needlestick injuries" and that it "successfully been clinically evaluated." The ultimate ground truth is implied to be actual prevention of needlestick injuries.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable: There is no "training set" in the context of this physical device.

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

• Not Applicable: As there is no training set, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Antineedle Stick Protector is an integral, active safety device intended to minimize accidental needle stick injuries when used to shield needles for Kawasumi products manufactured with a wing and needle assembly for solution infusion and blood sampling.

The Small Vein Infusion Set with Antineedle Stick Protector is a single use, sterile device used for peripheral venous access for solution administration or blood collection. The Antineedle Stick Protector is an integral, active safety device intended to minimize accidental needle stick injuries when used to shield needles.

The Winged Collection Set with Multi-Sample Luer Adapter and Antineedle Stick Protector is a single use, sterile, blood collection device used for peripheral venous access for blood sampling. The Antineedle Stick Protector is an integral, active safety device intended to minimize accidental needle stick injuries when used to shield needles.

The Antineedle Stick Protector is a polymeric device designed to be used integral with winged needle sets and shields the needle when the needle with hub and wing assembly is removed from the patient

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the device:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Based on the provided K023917 510(k) Summary, the acceptance criteria are implicitly tied to the performance of the predicate device and the prevention of needlestick injuries. The document does not explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria with specific thresholds (e.g., "99% activation rate"). Instead, it focuses on achieving the same results as the predicate device regarding needle tip protection.

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified. The document mentions "a successful simulated use study" but does not provide details on the number of units or uses tested.
• Data Provenance: The study was conducted by Kawasumi Laboratories, Inc., located in Tokyo, Japan. The study is described as a "simulated use study," implying it was conducted in a controlled environment, likely within their facility. It is a prospective study as it was conducted specifically to demonstrate the device's performance for this 510(k) submission.

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

This information is not provided in the given text. The study is described as a "simulated use study" but does not mention the involvement of experts in establishing ground truth or evaluating the results. The determination of "success" likely relied on internal assessment criteria by Kawasumi Laboratories.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided in the given text. There is no mention of independent reviewers or an adjudication process for the "simulated use study."

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically associated with diagnostic imaging devices or algorithms where human readers interpret medical images with or without AI assistance. The device in question is a medical device designed to prevent needlestick injuries, and such a study would not be applicable.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

This question is not applicable to the device described. The device is a physical product (winged needle set with an antineedle stick protector), not an algorithm or software. Its performance inherently involves human interaction during its use to activate the protector.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this device's performance would likely be a direct observation of whether the needle tip was successfully shielded or retracted after simulated use, thereby preventing accidental needlestick. The text states: "In both devices, the needle tip is protected inside the device after use." This implies the ground truth for success was the successful physical enclosure of the needle tip.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This question is not applicable as there is no "training set" for this type of physical medical device. Training sets are relevant for machine learning algorithms.

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

This question is not applicable as there is no "training set."

Ask a specific question about this device