Search Results

To Administer Blood to the patient's vascular system.
To administer Blood and Blood Derivatives into a patient's vascular system

The PENTATRASFU™ Blood Transfusion Sets are Single Use, Non-toxic, Sterile, Non-Pyrogenic devices used to administer Blood to a patient's vascular system through a Needle or Catheter inserted into a vein.

The provided document describes the PENTATRASFU™ Blood Transfusion Sets and their substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/ML device. Therefore, the information required for this request (AI/ML acceptance criteria, study details, expert involvement, etc.) is not present in the provided text.

However, I can extract the information related to the performance testing and compliance with standards as described for this medical device.

Here's the information as best as can be extracted from the provided text, focusing on the performance criteria and testing mentioned for the PENTATRASFU™ Blood Transfusion Sets:

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

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

This information is not provided in the document. The document refers to "Performance Testing" but does not specify sample sizes or data provenance.

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)

This information is not provided in the document. The testing mentioned refers to compliance with a standard (ISO 1135-4) and biocompatibility, which typically involve laboratory testing, not expert-adjudicated ground truth as would be relevant for an AI/ML device.

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

This information is not applicable/not provided. The assessment of this medical device is based on compliance with recognized standards and laboratory testing, not a human reader adjudication process.

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/not provided. This device is a blood transfusion set, not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic or assistive device 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/not provided. This device is a physical medical instrument, not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established through compliance with recognized international standards (ISO 1135-4 for performance, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility) and direct physical/material testing, rather than clinical outcomes or expert consensus on diagnostic interpretations.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable/not provided. This device is a physical product and does not have a "training set" in the context of AI/ML.

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

This information is not applicable/not provided. This device is a physical product and does not have a "training set" or "ground truth" in the context of AI/ML.

Ask a specific question about this device

To Administer IV Fluids/medications to the patient's vascular system.
To administer IV Fluids into a patient's vascular system

The PENTADEFLU IV Administration Sets are Single Use, Sterile, Non-Pyrogenic devices used to administer IV fluids/medications to a patient's vascular system via gravity control.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the PENTADEFLU IV Administration Sets, a medical device. This type of regulatory submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than undergoing extensive clinical trials with acceptance criteria and comparative effectiveness studies as might be seen for novel therapeutic devices or AI-powered diagnostics.

Therefore, the information requested, such as acceptance criteria based on performance metrics, sample sizes for test and training sets, expert adjudication methods, MRMC studies, and ground truth establishment, is generally not present or applicable in the context of this 510(k) summary. The summary focuses on engineering and biocompatibility testing, along with demonstrating similarity to a predicate device.

Here's an analysis based on the information provided:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. This 510(k) summary does not describe a "test set" in the context of an AI/ML algorithm or diagnostic accuracy study. The testing mentioned refers to engineering, performance, biocompatibility, and sterility testing of the physical device. The provenance of samples for these tests (e.g., manufacturing batches) is not detailed.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. Ground truth establishment by experts during a diagnostic accuracy study is not relevant to this device's 510(k) submission.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. Adjudication methods are relevant for diagnostic studies, not for the type of device described here.

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 / Not Provided. This device is an IV administration set, not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study is not relevant.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. This device is a physical medical administration set, not an algorithm.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided directly in this format. For a physical device like an IV set, "ground truth" would refer to its adherence to engineering specifications, biocompatibility standards, and sterility requirements as verified by standardized testing methods and regulatory guidelines (e.g., ISO standards, FDA regulations for IV sets). This isn't "ground truth" in the diagnostic sense.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

• Not Applicable / Not Provided. There is no "training set."

Summary of the Study:

The "study" described in the 510(k) summary for the PENTADEFLU IV Administration Sets is a series of performance and safety tests conducted to demonstrate the device's conformance to established standards and its substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device (Victus IV Administration Sets, K023469).

The key aspects of the study are:

• Type of Study: Bench testing for mechanical properties, functioning, biocompatibility, and sterility. There are no clinical trials or human subject studies described for this 510(k).
• Purpose: To verify that the device meets safety and performance requirements for its intended use and is substantially equivalent to the predicate device.
• Methodology: Testing was conducted "using FDA recognized Standards, where applicable." The specific standards are not listed in this summary, but they would typically include ISO standards for medical devices, specifically those pertaining to IV administration sets (e.g., ISO 8536 series), as well as biocompatibility standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series) and sterility validation.
• No specific acceptance criteria values (e.g., tensile strength, flow rate tolerances) or numerical performance results are included in this high-level summary. The statement merely indicates that such testing was performed and verified.
• Comparison to Predicate: The submission asserts that the device has "the same technological characteristics" as the predicate and that "no modifications to the device design that affect safety and effectiveness" have been made. This forms the primary basis for the substantial equivalence determination.

Ask a specific question about this device