Search Filters

Search Results

Found 2 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K954676
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    1997-03-04

    (511 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    876.5820
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    NIPRO ARTERIAL & VENOUS BLOOD TUBING SET FOR HEMODIALYSIS

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The blood tubing sets are used to transport blood or fluids to a patient's vascular access device from a hemodialyzer. The reverse is also true in that the tubing set is used as to transport blood or fluids from a patient's vascular access device to a hemodialyzer.

    Device Description

    The tubing sets that we intend to market include arterial and venous dialysis blood tubing (nonimplanted blood access device) as described in 21 CFR 876.5540. Various models of blood tubing sets are being manufactured for application with different dialysis machines. Twenty-seven arterial line models (A001 - A021, A026, A029-A032, and A035) and 14 venous line models are described (V600 -V607, V609 - V613, and V616). All components of blood tubing, including drip chambers, infusion tubing, monitor lines, ports and segments which are used to pump blood, retain and capture air and blood debris, infuse medications or fluids, sample blood, monitor pressure, and make connections to other devices are included. The materials used for the components include polyethylene (PE), polyvinylchloride (PVC), acrylonitrate butadiene styrene (ABS), polyoxymethylene (POM), polypropylene (PP), polycarbonate (PC) and polyethylene high density (PEHD).

    AI/ML Overview

    This document describes the safety and effectiveness of the Nipro branded disposable blood tubing set for hemodialysis, asserting its substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices. The information provided heavily focuses on performance and biocompatibility testing comparing the Nipro device to existing products (Kawasumi and gambro® blood tubing sets).

    Here's an analysis of the provided information concerning acceptance criteria and supporting studies, organized as requested:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    TestAcceptance CriteriaReported Device Performance
    Performance Tests
    Priming Volume TestWithin acceptable range (compared to predicate devices)Observations found to be within acceptable range and test results were similar to values obtained for Kawasumi and gambro® blood tubing sets.
    Pull Force at Connecting JointsSpecification not explicitly defined beyond "after disengagement of the test tubing..."The subject and the legally marketed devices conformed to "the specification," but the numerical value of that specification isn't explicitly stated here, only that the disengagement result is recorded. It implies similarity to predicate devices.
    Torque ForceNot explicitly definedNo explicit performance data given, only that it was measured. Implies similarity to predicate devices.
    Endurance Test of the Pump Segment±10% variance from nominal values mean of outer diameter of the pump segmentThe subject and the legally marketed devices conformed to this specification.
    Air Leakage above Atmospheric PressureLeaks should occur at pressures > 2.0 kgf/cm² GResults were similar to those obtained with legally marketed devices. Leaks occurred at pressures more than 2.0 kgf/cm² G. No clogging was noted.
    Air Leakage below Atmospheric PressureNo air bubbles in the pathwayNo air bubbles occurred in samples tested and results were similar in legally marketed devices for comparison.
    Biocompatibility Tests
    PyrogenicityNonpyrogenicResults indicate that the blood tubing sets conform to the specifications set forth. Predicate devices for comparison show similar results when tested using these methods.
    Cytotoxicity (Elution Test)No biological reactivityResults indication conformity and similarity to predicate devices.
    Acute Toxicity (systemic injection)No biological reactivity/deathResults indication conformity and similarity to predicate devices.
    Intracutaneous reactivityNo erythema, edema, or necrosisResults indication conformity and similarity to predicate devices.
    SensitizationNot a sensitizerResults indication conformity and similarity to predicate devices.
    HemolysisNot to exceed 10%Results indication conformity and similarity to predicate devices.
    Ames MutagenicityNot mutagenicResults indication conformity and similarity to predicate devices.
    ImplantationNo hemorrhage, film, or encapsulationResults indication conformity and similarity to predicate devices.

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

    The document does not explicitly state the numerical sample size for the test set or the provenance of the data (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It only mentions "samples tested" and "subject device" implying that a certain number of the Nipro blood tubing sets were tested alongside the predicate devices. The study appears to be a benchtop (in-vitro) and laboratory animal study for performance and biocompatibility, respectively, rather than a clinical trial with human subjects.

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

    Not applicable. This is not a study assessing an AI device where "ground truth" would be established by human experts in a clinical context. The "ground truth" for these tests are objective measurements and established biological assays with pre-defined specifications.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    Not applicable. As this is not a study involving human interpretation of data for "ground truth," no adjudication method is relevant. The tests performed are objective measurements.

    5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size

    No. This document describes the testing of a physical medical device (blood tubing set), not an AI algorithm for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. Therefore, an MRMC study is not relevant.

    6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

    No. This document is not about an AI algorithm.

    7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

    The ground truth used for these tests are objective measurements (e.g., volume, force, diameter, pressure, presence/absence of bubbles) and established biological assay results (e.g., pyrogenicity, cytotoxicity, hemolysis) against pre-defined specifications or in comparison to legally marketed predicate devices.

    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

    Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm, so there is no "training set."

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

    Not applicable. As there is no training set for an AI algorithm, this question is not relevant.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    K Number
    K953823
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    1996-09-23

    (405 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    876.5820
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    ARTERIAL VENOUS BLOOD TUBING SET

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

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

    Device Description

    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).

    AI/ML Overview

    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 Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1