Search Results

The Medisystems Hemodialysis Fistula Needle Securement Device, SiteGuard, is intended for use to secure the fistula needle to the patient's skin.

The SiteGuard needle securement device has the following features:
a. It allows the needle to be held at a consistent angle during treatment;
b. It secures wing/hub to the patient's skin and helps prevent movement and/or dislodgement of the needle during use; and,
c. It helps to immobilize the patient's vein or access during cannulation so that it is not necessary for caregivers to hold the vein or access with their fingers.

The subject of this 510(k) is a removable, rigid plastic securement device that is attached to the AVF needle set by the care giver. The SiteGuard securement device will be included in the unit packaging pouch with the Medisystems AVF needle set and also will be available for purchase as an individually packaged accessory.

Because the tape, the AVF wing, and the patient's skin are flexible, the needle may dislodge or move within the patient's access during treatment due to this inherent flexibility. The securement device adds a rigid structure to increase the ability of the tape to prevent the needle from accidentally dislodging or moving within the patient's vascular access.

This accessory also will immobilize the patient's vein during insertion of the cannula so that it is not necessary for caregivers to hold the vein or access with their fingers. The channel along the bottom of the securement device is designed to immobilize the patient's vein during insertion. This feature is especially helpful for patients who have newly created fistulas or implanted grafts because new accesses tend to move during cannulation.

This 510(k) summary does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance against those criteria.

Instead, this document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices rather than demonstrating performance against specific acceptance criteria through a comparative study.

Here's a breakdown of why the requested information is absent and what the document does provide:

• Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance: These are not mentioned. The document states that "all finished products are tested and must meet all required release specifications before distribution" and that "The required testing is defined by written and approved procedures that conform to the product design specifications." However, what these specifications or acceptance criteria are, or the quantitative results of such testing, are not provided in this 510(k) summary.

• Study That Proves the Device Meets Acceptance Criteria: No such specific study is described. The document refers to "risk analysis, test and design considerations, and verification and validation testing processes" as part of product development, but it doesn't detail a study designed to demonstrate performance against acceptance criteria.

Let's address the specific points you asked for, indicating where the information is not present in this document:

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

   • Not present. The document mentions "required release specifications" and "product design specifications" but does not enumerate them or report specific performance metrics against them.

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

   • Not present. No specific test set or data from a performance study is described.

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 present. There is no mention of ground truth establishment or experts for a test set.

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

   • Not present. No test set or adjudication method is described.

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 present. This device is a physical securement device, not an AI or imaging device, so an MRMC study is not relevant and not discussed.

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

   • Not present. As this is a physical device, this concept does not apply.

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

   • Not present. No ground truth type is mentioned as no performance study is detailed.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not present. There is no mention of a training set, as this is not an AI/machine learning device.

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

   • Not present. Not applicable, as there's no training set mentioned.

Summary of what the document does convey regarding "Safety and effectiveness":

The document states:

• "To assure that the devices are safe and effective, all finished products are tested and must meet all required release specifications before distribution."
• "The required testing is defined by written and approved procedures that conform to the product design specifications."
• "The potential hazards have been studied and controlled as part of the product development process, including risk analysis, test and design considerations, and verification and validation testing processes."
• The primary justification for safety and effectiveness is "substantial equivalence" to legally marketed predicate devices (TNT Moborg Intl., LTD, Immobile Non-sterile and Immobile A/C t non-sterile (K941850); and, TNT Immobile sterile and Immobile A/C sterile (K941940)). The document explicitly states, "There are no new issues of safety or effectiveness resulting from the inclusion of this accessory in the legally marketed needle set."

In essence, this 510(k) relies on the argument that the SiteGuard device is similar enough to already approved devices that it shares their established safety and effectiveness profile, without needing to conduct new, explicit performance studies detailed in this summary.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Medisystems Blood Tubing Set Accessories are indicated for use as a part of an extracorporeal blood circuit for hemodialysis. The specific indications for use each accessory are as follows:
a. The Reverso™ is indicated for use as an access flow reversing valve to reverse the blood flow to and from the arterial and venous access devices during hemodialysis procedures without the need to clamp and disconnect bloodlines.
b. The Recirculation Connector is indicated for use as a male to male Luer adaptor.
c. The Parallel Dialyzer Connector is indicated for use to interconnect two hemodialyzers in parallel as prescribed by the physician as part of the extracorporeal blood system.
d. The Series Dialyzer Connector is indicated for use to interconnect two hemodialyzers in series as prescribed by the physician as part of the extracorporeal blood system.

A series of blood tubing set accessories to be used as part of the extracorporeal circuit.
A. Medisystems Blood Tubing Set Accessory, Access Flow Reversing Valve, (Reverso): The technical characteristics of the device consist of a manually operated valve with a gasket to prevent leakage. The device is also equipped with tubing and Luer connectors to allow it to interconnect between the blood tubing set and the blood access devices. The device allows reversal to the arterial and venous blood access without the need to disconnect the blood tubing set from the access devices. The reversal of the arterial and venous accesses is necessary to facilitate certain common diagnostic procedures and can be used to reverse flow in central venous or femoral catheters that have patency problems.
B. Medisystems Blood Tubing Set Accessory, Recirculation Connector: The device is a singly packed recirculation connector (male-to male Luer adaptor) used to interconnect the arterial and venous bloodlines.
C. Medisystems Blood Tubing Set Accessory, Parallel Dialyzer Interconnector: The device is used with a standard blood tubing set to provide a means to connect two dialyzers in parallel into the extracorporeal circuit.
D. Medisystems Blood Tubing Set Accessory, Series Dialyzer Interconnector: The device is used with a standard blood tubing set to provide a means to connect two dialyzers in series into the extracorporeal circuit.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for "Blood Tubing Set Accessories" by Medisystems Corporation. The document outlines the device's intended use and technological characteristics but does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of device performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, or similar measures typically found in AI/ML device submissions.

Instead, the submission focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (Medisystems' Blood Tubing Sets described in K953823) and details the safety and effectiveness measures in terms of manufacturing processes and quality control.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text, highlighting what is missing:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for K994306 (Medisystems Blood Tubing Set Accessories)

Given the nature of the device (blood tubing set accessories for hemodialysis) and the regulatory context (510(k) submission from 2000), the testing described is primarily for manufacturing quality assurance and functional integrity rather than AI/ML performance metrics.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Missing Information: The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria for device performance (e.g., "leakage rate must be

Ask a specific question about this device

Medisystems Buttonhole Needle Sets are indicated for use as an access device for dialysis and pheresis procedures using a constant site or "buttonhole" method of needle insertion.

The Medisystems Buttonhole Needle Set consists of a hollow, rigid needle/cannula, a flexible tube, and locking connector to provide access through the skin at a constant or "buttonhole" site. Different degrees of point sharpness are offered to accommodate creation of the buttonhole site and cannulation through an established buttonhole site.

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The provided document does not specify the exact sample size used for the test set of the Medisystems Buttonhole Needle Sets. It mentions that "all finished products are tested," implying a 100% inspection for release testing, but does not detail the size of any specific sample for formal effectiveness or safety studies.

The data provenance is from Medisystems Corporation, with the testing described as part of their Device Master Records which define "required testing." This suggests that the testing was conducted internally by the manufacturer. The document does not specify the country of origin of the data, but the submitter is based in Washington, DC, USA. The nature of the testing (manufacturing release testing) indicates it is prospective for each batch produced.

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

The document does not describe the use of external experts or the establishment of a "ground truth" in the context of clinical or performance evaluation for the test set. The acceptance criteria are related to manufacturing release specifications (sterility, pyrogenicity, physical testing, visual examination) rather than clinical efficacy or diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, this section is not applicable based on the provided information.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable. As noted above, the criteria are manufacturing release specifications, not clinical outcomes requiring adjudication.

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

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not completed for the Medisystems Buttonhole Needle Sets. The document focuses on the substantial equivalence of the device to predicate devices based on design, materials, and indicated use, and manufacturing release testing. It does not describe any studies involving human readers or comparative effectiveness in a clinical setting. Therefore, there is no information on the effect size of human readers with or without AI assistance.

6. Standalone Performance Study (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance)

Not applicable. The device is a physical medical needle set, not an algorithm or AI-driven system. Therefore, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study against human-in-the-loop performance is not relevant.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" in this context refers to established manufacturing and product quality standards. The types of "ground truth" used are:

• Sterility: Absence of viable microorganisms, confirmed by validated methods.
• Pyrogenicity: Absence of fever-inducing substances (endotoxins), confirmed by validated tests.
• Physical Testing: Conformance to specified physical properties (e.g., tensile strength, dimensional accuracy, needle sharpness, cannula integrity), confirmed by engineering measurements and tests.
• Visual Examination: Absence of defects, verified by inspection against defined visual standards.

These are objective, measurable criteria directly related to the product's design specifications and defined by "written and approved procedures."

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is a physical medical instrument, not a machine learning model. Therefore, there is no concept of a "training set" for an algorithm. The manufacturing process and quality control procedures are based on established engineering principles and standards, not data-driven machine learning training.

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

Not applicable due to the device not being an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

Medisystems Transducer Protectors are indicated for use as protective devices for pressure monitors on hemodialysis machines as well as to help protect the sterility of the blood tubing fluid pathway. The filter helps prevent cross-contamination by viruses, bacteria, and other particulate matter while preventing the flow of fluids to the hemodialysis machine's pressure transducer.

Medisystems Transducer Protectors are designed to be used as protective devices for pressure monitors as well as to help maintain the sterility of the blood tubing fluid pathway. The 0.2 um hydrophobic filter helps prevent cross-contamination by viruses, bacteria and particulate matter while preventing the flow of fluids to the hemodialysis machine pressure monitor. The technical characteristics of the device consist of a filter housing that contains a 0.2 um hydrophobic filter. The combination of the pore size and hydrophobic nature of the filter also prevents the flow of fluids, viruses, bacteria, and particulate matter into the pressure monitor at pressures lower than the rated pressure of the device.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for "Medisystems Transducer Protectors" and focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously marketed devices. It details the device's intended use and technological characteristics. However, it does not contain the specific information required to complete the requested table and answer the study-related questions.

The document primarily states that the product is "tested and must meet all required release specifications before distribution," including "sterility, pyrogenicity, physical testing, and visual examination." It refers to "written and approved procedures that conform to the product design specifications" in "Device Master Records," but these specifics are not provided.

Therefore, for most of the requested points, the information is not available in the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be answered:

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

Study Information (Based on availability in the text):

• 2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not available. The document states "To assure that the device is safe and effective, all finished products are tested," implying ongoing manufacturing testing rather than a single clinical study for market approval.
• 3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. This sounds like an AI/machine learning evaluation, which is not the context of this 510(k) submission. For mechanical devices like transducers, "ground truth" typically refers to established engineering standards and test methods.
• 4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable/Not available.
• 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 k-submission is for a physical medical device (transducer protector), not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.
• 6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
• 7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): For manufacturing release, the "ground truth" would be the pre-defined engineering and sterility specifications (e.g., lack of bacterial growth for sterility, specific pressure tolerance for physical testing).
• 8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.
• 9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided document details a regulatory submission for a physical medical device. It outlines the device's function and the general commitment to quality control testing, but it does not describe a clinical study or performance evaluation in the way that would typically be associated with software or AI-driven diagnostics, which is what the detailed questions seem to be geared towards. The "study" here is the ongoing manufacturing testing to meet "release specifications."

Ask a specific question about this device

The proposed Dialysis Priming Sets are indicated for use to provide a means to deliver rie proposed promote from a collapsible container or vented bottle into a patient's. vascular system during dialysis procedures.

The Medisystems Dialysis Priming Sets provide a means of delivering fluids and medicaments from a collapsible container or vented bottle into a patient's vascular system during dialysis procedures. The set consists of a flexible drip chamber with a spike for attachment to the solution container, an adjustable clamp that regulates flow, a flexible delivery tube with a two port connector. This connector will allow connection of the set to devices with compatible female luer connectors. The set will also allow connection of a separate device with compatible male luer to the set's female luer connector.

This document describes a 510(k) submission for Medisystems Dialysis Priming Sets, which are accessories for hemodialysis. The focus of the submission is on demonstrating substantive equivalence to previously cleared devices, rather than a novel device requiring a de novo clinical study for performance metrics. Therefore, many of the typical acceptance criteria and study details requested are not present in this type of submission.

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

The document does not explicitly state a specific sample size for a "test set" related to clinical performance or a comparative study against a human baseline. The testing described is primarily for manufacturing quality control and material biocompatibility.

The data provenance is for manufacturing quality control and biocompatibility testing of the device itself. It doesn't appear to involve patient data or a clinical study in the typical sense for demonstrating diagnostic or treatment efficacy. The context is a device accessory, not a diagnostic algorithm or a therapeutic drug.

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 to this 510(k) submission. The "ground truth" here is adherence to manufacturing specifications, biocompatibility standards, and functional equivalence to predicate devices, which are typically assessed through laboratory testing and regulatory compliance, not expert consensus on clinical outcomes.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as there is no mention of a human expert-based test set adjudication process. The testing described is laboratory and manufacturing process-based.

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. This is a submission for a physical medical device accessory (dialysis priming set), not an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD) that would involve human readers or AI assistance.

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

This information is not applicable. This is a physical medical device.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's safety and effectiveness relies on:

• Predicate Device Equivalence: The primary "ground truth" for regulatory clearance is that the device is "substantially equivalent" to legally marketed predicate devices in terms of intended use and technological characteristics.
• Manufacturing Specifications: "The required testing is defined by written and approved procedures that conform to the product design specifications."
• Biocompatibility Standards: The biocompatibility testing implies adherence to recognized standards.
• Sterility and Pyrogenicity Standards: These are objective laboratory tests.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not a machine learning algorithm.

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

This information is not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not a machine learning algorithm.

Summary of the Study/Evidence Provided for Meeting Acceptance Criteria:

The "study" presented is the collection of evidence for a 510(k) premarket notification, aiming to demonstrate substantial equivalence to already marketed predicate devices. The primary evidence consists of:

• Comparison of Intended Use: Demonstrated identical intended use to predicate devices.
• Comparison of Technological Characteristics: Demonstrated identical technological characteristics (spike connector, tubing, drip chamber, adjustable clamp, connection means) to predicate devices.
• Verification and Validation Testing (Manufacturing & Materials):
  • Biocompatibility Testing: Conducted where materials differed from the predicate, showing no effect on safety and effectiveness.
  • Performance Testing: Implied comprehensive "physical testing" as part of the release specifications, ensuring the device functions as designed.
  • Sterility Testing: Performed on all finished products as a release specification.
  • Pyrogenicity Testing: Performed on all finished products as a release specification.
  • Visual Examination: Conducted on in-process and finished products.
• Adherence to "Device Master Records": Indicating that all required testing and specifications are documented and followed according to established procedures.

The ultimate "proof" of meeting acceptance criteria for this type of submission is the FDA's determination of substantial equivalence, which was granted for K971860 on August 8, 1997. This clearance is based on the submission demonstrating that the device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Medisystems Peritoneal Dialysis Set product line is indicated for use in compatible peritoneal dialysis procedures. Specific codes are indicated respectively for Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis (CAPD) and Cycler Peritoneal Dialysis.

The Medisystems' Peritoneal Dialysis Sets comprise a number of codes to facilitate peritoneal dialysis procedures. The Medisystems' Peritoneal Dialysis Sets consist of tubing and componentry to allow connection between a container of dialysate solution and the patient's indwelling catheter for instillation into and retention of the dialysate in the peritoneal cavity. The Peritoneal Dialysis Sets then allow exchange of fresh dialysate by providing a means to aseptically drain the used dialysate from the peritoneal cavity into a collection bag for disposal.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for Medisystems Peritoneal Dialysis Sets, focusing on substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting detailed performance studies or specific acceptance criteria with quantifiable metrics. The information available is primarily about the product description, intended use, and manufacturing controls.

As such, many of the requested sections (e.g., sample sizes, expert qualifications, effect size for MRMC studies, standalone performance data) cannot be fully addressed from the given document because the submission does not detail such a "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the way one might expect for a diagnostic or AI-driven device. Instead, it relies on demonstrating equivalence through design and material characteristics, and manufacturing quality control.

Here's an attempt to structure the available information per your request, with explicit notes on what information is not present in 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 for Test Set: Not specified. The document refers to "all finished products" being tested as part of manufacturing release, implying ongoing quality control rather than a specific test set for a performance study.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of a clinical performance study. The "data" pertains to internal manufacturing test results.

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. The ground truth for this device appears to be based on adherence to engineering and safety specifications (e.g., sterility, pyrogenicity, physical integrity), rather than expert clinical assessment of outcomes or diagnoses.

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

• Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical trials or diagnostic accuracy studies where multiple human readers or AI make assessments that need to be reconciled against a ground truth. The testing described here is manufacturing quality control.

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 comparative effectiveness study was done or mentioned. This type of study is relevant for AI-assisted diagnostic devices, which is not the nature of this submission (a peritoneal dialysis set).

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

• Not applicable. This device is a medical accessory, not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The type of ground truth used

• The "ground truth" for this device's acceptance is based on engineering specifications and established safety standards (e.g., sterility, pyrogenicity, physical integrity as defined by written procedures and design specifications) rather than clinical outcomes, pathology, or expert consensus on a diagnostic task.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set. The "training" for the device involves manufacturing processes and quality control.

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

• Not applicable. As this is not an AI/ML device, there is no "training set" or corresponding ground truth establishment in that context.

Ask a specific question about this device

Medisystems Transducer Protectors are single use, disposable prescription devices intended for use as protective devices for pressure monitors and to help protect the sterility of the fluid pathway.

Medisystems Transducer Protectors are designed to be used as protective devices for pressure monitors as well as to help maintain the sterility of the blood tubing fluid pathway. The 0.2 µm hydrophobic filter helps prevent cross-contamination by bacteria and particulate matter while preventing the flow of fluids to the machine pressure monitor at pressures less than 600 mmHg.

The provided 510(k) summary describes a medical device, the Medisystems Transducer Protectors, and its asserted equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not include the kind of detailed study information (acceptance criteria, performance metrics, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert involvement, or comparative effectiveness studies) that would typically be found in a submission for a device involving AI or complex performance claims. This summary is for a relatively simple disposable component, and thus the "study" described is primarily quality control and manufacturing process validation rather than a clinical performance study.

Here's an analysis based only on the provided text, highlighting what's not present given the nature of the request:

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. The submission refers to "all finished products" being tested as part of the release specifications. This implies a manufacturing quality control process rather than a discrete clinical/performance study with a defined sample size for a test set.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical or AI-related data. The testing described is part of the manufacturing and quality assurance process.

3. 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 this device's performance comes from its physical properties (0.2 µm filter, hydrophobic nature) and manufacturing quality control tests (sterility, pyrogenicity, physical testing, visual examination) against defined specifications, not from expert interpretation of complex data.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable. There is no expert adjudication process described. The acceptance criteria are objective tests against specifications.

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. This device is a passive mechanical filter. It does not involve AI or human readers, so an MRMC study is not relevant or described.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a passive mechanical filter. There is no algorithm or AI component mentioned.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Objective physical and chemical properties, combined with manufacturing process control specifications. The device's function relies on its 0.2 µm pore size and hydrophobic material. "Ground truth" for its performance is established by demonstrating these properties and verifying manufacturing quality (sterility, pyrogenicity, physical integrity) according to internal procedures and specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. There is no training set mentioned, as this device does not involve machine learning or AI.

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

• Not applicable. There is no training set mentioned.

Ask a specific question about this device

The blood tubing sets are intended for use with a blood access device and a medically approved flowthrough treatment device.

Medisystems blood tubing sets are used during extracorporeal procedures by providing a means to connect blood access devices to flow-through treatment device(s) (e.g. a hemodialyzer).

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "Arterial - Venous Blood Tubing Set." This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and details proposed labeling changes, rather than presenting a study with acceptance criteria and device performance metrics.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information required to answer your request. It does not describe:

• Acceptance criteria for device performance.
• A study proving the device meets acceptance criteria.
• Sample sizes for test or training sets.
• Data provenance.
• Number or qualifications of experts.
• Adjudication methods.
• MRMC comparative effectiveness studies.
• Standalone algorithm performance.
• Types of ground truth.
• Methods for establishing ground truth.

The document explicitly states: "Because the intent of this 510(k) is to seek FDA acknowledgment for a change in the labeling of currently marketed devices, the technological characteristics of the device are unchanged." and "The proposed labeling changes do not affect the product's design, composition, manufacturing, or performance characteristics." This indicates that no new performance studies were conducted or are being reported in this submission.

Ask a specific question about this device