Search Results

The Affinity™ CP Centrifugal Blood Pump with Carmeda® BioActive Surface is used to pump blood through the extracorporeal bypass circuit for extracorporeal circulatory support for periods appropriate to cardiopulmonary bypass (up to 6 hours).

It is also indicated for use in extracorporeal support systems (for periods up to 6 hours) not requiring complete cardiopulmonary bypass (e.g. valvuloplasty, circulatory support during mitral valve reoperation, surgery of the vena cava or aorta, liver transplants).

The Affinity™ CP Centrifugal Blood Pump with Carmeda® BioActive Surface is driven by the External Drive Motor or the Emergency Handcrank.

The Affinity™ CP Centrifugal Blood Pump with Carmeda® Bioactive Surface is intended to be used in medical procedures requiring extracorporeal circulation circuits. Functionality and intended use of the coated pump are the same as those for the uncoated pump. The pump is designed to move blood by centrifugal force generated by a combination of a smooth rotating cone and low-profile impeller fins. Energy is transferred from the pump in the form of pressure and velocity as the blood is driven toward the outlet port of the pump. The pump utilizes a pivot bearing design on a dual ceramic pivot.

The Affinity CP Centrifugal Blood Pump with Carmeda Bioactive Surface is coated with a nonleaching bioactive surface (heparin) to enhance blood compatibility and provide thromboresistant blood-contacting surfaces.

As with the uncoated Affinity CP pump the Affinity CP Centrifugal Blood Pump with Carmeda Bioactive Surface is driven by the External Drive Motor or the Emergency Handcrank (K100631). There have been no changes to these accessory devices.

This 510(k) summary describes a modification of an existing device, the Affinity CP Centrifugal Blood Pump, by adding a Carmeda BioActive Surface. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" discussed are largely related to demonstrating that the coated pump is substantially equivalent to the uncoated predicate device and another coated predicate device. The performance data presented shows that the modified device meets the necessary safety and effectiveness requirements for this substantial equivalence claim.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not explicitly present a table of numerical acceptance criteria with corresponding performance values in the way one might see for a diagnostic device's sensitivity/specificity. Instead, it lists the types of performance testing conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence. The "acceptance criteria" implicitly are that the device performs comparably to the predicate devices and meets relevant safety standards for each test.

Study Details:

This document is a 510(k) summary, which provides a high-level overview of the device and the studies supporting its substantial equivalence. It does not contain detailed study protocols, raw data, or comprehensive statistical analysis that would typically be found in a full study report.

1. 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 the sample sizes (e.g., number of pumps tested) for any of the verification and validation tests listed.
   • The data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not mentioned. These types of tests are typically prospective laboratory bench and animal tests, not human clinical trials, when demonstrating substantial equivalence for a device modification like this.

2. 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 document describes engineering and biological performance testing for a medical device, not a diagnostic algorithm. Therefore, the concept of "ground truth established by experts" in the context of image interpretation or clinical diagnosis by human readers is not applicable here. The "ground truth" for these tests would be established by validated measurement techniques and established engineering/biological standards in a laboratory setting.

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

   • Not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used for establishing ground truth in human-AI interpretation studies, usually for clinical endpoints or image readings. This document discusses bench and biocompatibility testing for a blood pump.

4. 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 medical device (blood pump), not an AI diagnostic tool. Therefore, MRMC studies are not relevant.

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

   • Not applicable. This is a physical medical device (blood pump), not an AI algorithm.

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

   • For the performance tests listed (flow rates, heat generation, hemolysis, bioactivity, etc.), the "ground truth" would be established by standardized laboratory measurement protocols and validated analytical tests. For example, hemolysis would be measured using spectrophotometry against established benchmarks, and bioactivity (heparin effectiveness) would be measured through anti-coagulant assays. These are objective, quantitative measures rather than subjective expert consensus.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This refers to a physical medical device, not an AI model that requires a training set.

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

   • Not applicable. As above, this document does not describe an AI model.

Ask a specific question about this device