Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K202560
    Date Cleared
    2020-12-10

    (97 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    876.1500
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    AquaPulse Irrigation Tubing

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

    The 24 hour use AquaPulse® Irrigation Tubing (tubing and accessories to accommodate various GI endoscopes and irrigation pumps) is intended to provide irrigation via a sterile water bottle during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures when used in conjunction with an irrigation pump.

    Device Description

    The AquaPulse® Irrigation Tubing is intended for 24-hour use and then discarded. The irrigation tubing is manufactured for use in conjunction with sterile water bottle, and together with irrigation pumps. The irrigation tubing is individually packed in sealed package, sold as a sterile device. The irrigation tubing is designed to the auxiliary water connector or biopsy irrigation accessory and to be inserted into pump head of the irrigation pump to provide irrigation through the auxiliary water channel to the distal end of endoscope.

    AI/ML Overview

    This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the AquaPulse® Irrigation Tubing, submitted by GA Health Company Limited to the FDA. The purpose of this notification is to demonstrate that the AquaPulse® Irrigation Tubing is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device.

    Here's an analysis based on your request, focusing on typical acceptance criteria and study information for medical devices, specifically highlighting what is not present in this 510(k) summary since it's for a relatively simple device where clinical studies are often not required for substantial equivalence.

    1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance:

    The document summarizes performance testing, but does not provide a detailed table of acceptance criteria and specific performance values with pass/fail results. Instead, it offers a general statement about meeting specifications.

    Performance CharacteristicAcceptance Criteria (Not explicitly stated in detail)Reported Device Performance
    Flow PerformanceAssumed to be comparable to predicate device"met established specifications"
    SterilitySterility Assurance Level (SAL) of $10^{-6}$Achieved $10^{-6}$ SAL via validated EO sterilization cycle
    EO ResidualsBelow maximum levels defined in ANSI/AAMI/ISO 10993-7Below maximum levels
    Shelf LifeMaintain sterile barrier and intended performance for 1 yearDemonstrated through accelerated aging, packaging integrity, and performance tests
    BiocompatibilityMeet ISO 10993-1 requirements for surface devices with mucosal membrane contact for ≤ 24 hoursTest results indicate biocompatibility
    Backflow PreventionPrevent backflowDiaphragm design allows one-way flow, identical to predicate

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

    • Test Set Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for any of the performance tests (flow, sterility, shelf life, biocompatibility).
    • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). This type of detail is often not included in a 510(k) summary for bench testing.

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

    • Not applicable (N/A). This document describes testing for a physical medical device (irrigation tubing) where performance is measured objectively (e.g., flow rate, sterility, chemical residue). It does not involve expert-established ground truth like in an AI/imaging device study.

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

    • N/A. Adjudication methods are typically relevant for studies involving human interpretation or subjective assessments, not for objective bench testing of device performance.

    5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and its effect size:

    • No. An MRMC study is not relevant for this type of device. The study described is a series of bench tests comparing the subject device to a predicate device.

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

    • No. This is not an AI/algorithm-based device. The "standalone" performance refers to the device's inherent functional characteristics (flow, sterility, etc.) as evaluated in the bench tests.

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

    • Objective measurements and established scientific standards. For example:
      • Flow Performance: Likely compared to established predicate performance or engineering specifications.
      • Sterility: Measured against a Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10^-6.
      • EO Residuals: Measured against limits defined by ANSI/AAMI/ISO 10993-7.
      • Biocompatibility: Evaluated according to ISO 10993-1 guidelines through biological tests.

    8. The sample size for the training set:

    • N/A. This device does not use machine learning or AI, and therefore does not have a "training set" in that context.

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

    • N/A. As there is no training set for an AI/ML model, this question is not applicable.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1