Search Results

The Aeroquip SafeStart™ IV Catheter is a sterile, non-pyrogenic, disposable peripheral vascular access catheter intended to provide peripheral venous access per CDC guidelines without the spillage of blood when accessing a vein or artery. It is intended to allow administration of drug and fluids into patients via a standard luer connection. The Aeroquip SafeStart™ IV Catheter permits for any type of intravenous fluid administration (continuous and intermittent) or withdrawal of fluids.

The Aeroquip SafeStart™ IV Catheter device is a sterile, non-pyrogenic, disposable, peripheral vascular access catheter. The catheter check valve assembly consists of a catheter tube, a twoway internal check valve, a catheter body and a luer lock interface cap.

This submission (K970669) for the Aeroquip SafeStart™ IV Catheter does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and studies demonstrating that the device meets those criteria.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary and the FDA's clearance letter for a medical device. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than providing detailed performance studies against specific acceptance criteria.

Here's why the information is missing from the provided text:

• 510(k) Submissions Focus on Equivalence: 510(k) applications primarily aim to show that a new device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device, not necessarily to prove its absolute safety and effectiveness through rigorous, pre-defined acceptance criteria and extensive performance studies in the way a PMA (Premarket Approval) would.
• Device Type: This device is a peripheral vascular access catheter. For such devices, the primary "acceptance criteria" are typically related to biocompatibility, sterility, fluid flow rates, material strength, and safe insertion/removal. These are often validated through standard engineering tests and biocompatibility assessments, rather than complex clinical studies with "ground truth" and "expert consensus" as would be seen for diagnostic AI or imaging devices.
• "Study" vs. "Testing": While the device would have undergone various engineering and bench testing (e.g., for flow rate, tensile strength, leak detection, sterilization validation), these are not typically presented as "studies" in the context of comparative effectiveness or accuracy as you've outlined in your request (which are more common for diagnostic AI/imaging devices).
• No AI Component: The device described is a physical medical device (IV catheter), not an artificial intelligence (AI) or software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD) product. Therefore, concepts like "human readers improve with AI," "standalone algorithm performance," "ground truth establishment by experts," and "training sets" are not applicable.

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table or answer the specific questions based on the provided input. The information you're asking for would generally be found in different sections of a regulatory submission (e.g., detailed design verification and validation test reports, biocompatibility reports) or in separate clinical study reports, which are not part of this 510(k) summary.

Ask a specific question about this device