Search Results

The EZ-IV Medical Pad Warming Unit is intended to warm alcohol and povidone iodine skin cleansing pads for use in gaining venous access during intravenous fluid and / or medication administration and to facilitate phlebotomy procedures.

The EZ-IV Medical Pad Warming Unit, is a compact, portable, tabletop size medical device, used to warm factory sealed medical prep pads (alcohol and povidone iodine), with a pre-set maximum temperature of 55° C. A lid covers the unit to minimize any heat loss from the medical pads. Inside the unit are four individual compartments, in which the sealed pads are placed. Each compartment has it's own, inner lid. The front of the device has a membrane keypad to control the device function.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the EZ-IV Medical Pad Warming Unit, Model 1000. It is a device intended to warm alcohol and povidone iodine skin cleansing pads for use in gaining venous access during intravenous fluid and/or medication administration and to facilitate phlebotomy procedures.

However, the provided document does not contain the acceptance criteria for device performance, nor does it detail a study that explicitly proves the device meets such criteria in a quantitative manner typical of performance studies for diagnostic or AI-based medical devices. The "Efficacy" and "Safety" sections describe studies related to the benefits of using warmed pads and the safety of the warming unit itself, rather than performance of the device against predefined quantitative metrics suitable for a table of acceptance criteria.

The device in question is a simple warming unit, not an AI or diagnostic device that would typically have performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC. Therefore, many of the questions regarding AI-specific criteria (like ground truth, expert consensus, MRMC studies, etc.) are not applicable to this submission.

Given the nature of the device and the provided document, I will answer the applicable questions based on the information available and note where information is not present or not relevant.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As no explicit acceptance criteria for device performance are stated in the provided 510(k) summary, I cannot populate a table in the typical format of a diagnostic device. However, I can infer the "performance" demonstrated by the efficacy and safety studies mentioned.

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

• Test Set Sample Size:
  • Clinical Efficacy Studies: The summary mentions "pediatric patients" for the first clinical study and "warmed alcohol and povidone iodine pads" for the second clinical evaluation. However, the specific sample sizes (number of patients or number of procedures) for these clinical studies are not provided in the document.
  • Chemical and Sterility Studies: The sample size for pads used in infrared spectrometer analyses and sterility studies is implied but not explicitly stated.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin for the clinical studies. The clinical studies appear to be prospective as they describe "a clinical study was conducted" and "a second clinical evaluation showed." The chemical and sterility tests are laboratory-based tests.

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

This question is not applicable as the device is a warming unit, not a diagnostic device requiring expert interpretation for "ground truth" establishment in a test set. The clinical studies likely used objective measures (number of needle sticks, time to venous access) and microbial culture results.

4. Adjudication Method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the Test Set

This question is not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used for evaluating human-expert disagreement on diagnostic tasks. The clinical and laboratory studies reported for this device would have objective outcomes (e.g., counts, time measurements, laboratory analyses) rather than subjective assessments requiring 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 question is not applicable. The EZ-IV Medical Pad Warming Unit is not an AI device, and therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study with AI assistance is not relevant to its assessment.

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

This question is not applicable. The EZ-IV Medical Pad Warming Unit is not an algorithm or AI device. Its performance is related to its physical function (warming) and its impact on clinical procedures, not an algorithm's standalone performance.

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

For the efficacy studies:

• Clinical Outcomes Data: The ground truth for the efficacy studies appears to be clinical outcomes data, specifically:
  • "statistically significant reduction in the number of venous access attempts (needle sticks)"
  • "significant decrease in time required for venous access"
  • The "microbial analysis" likely used standard microbiological culture results or similar laboratory methods to determine microbial load reduction.

For the safety studies:

• Laboratory Analysis Results: For chemical composition, the ground truth would be based on infrared spectrometer analyses. For sterility, it would be based on standard sterility testing methods.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This question is not applicable. The EZ-IV Medical Pad Warming Unit is a hardware device, not an AI or machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

This question is not applicable as the device does not involve a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device