Search Results

The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System permits access to the patient's peripheral vascular system for short-term venous use (less than 30 days) to sample blood, administer fluids, and perform high pressure contrast injections at a maximum of 325 psi.

The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System permits access to the patient's peripheral vascular system for short-term use (less than 30 days) to facilitate arterial blood pressure measurement and blood sampling.

The safety feature is intended to minimize the risk of sharps injuries.

The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter may be used for any patient population with consideration given to adequacy of anatomy and appropriateness of the procedure.

The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter may be used in hospitals, clinics, and other advanced clinical facilities.

The subject device, Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System, is a sterile, single use peripheral intravascular device designed to permit access to the peripheral vascular system. The Endurance catheter is intended to permit access to the patient's peripheral vascular system for short-term venous use to sample blood, administer fluids and for high pressure contrast injections at a maximum of 325 psi. The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System permits access to the patient's peripheral vascular system for short-term arterial use to monitor arterial blood pressure and blood sampling. The safety feature is intended to minimize the risk of sharps injuries.

The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System is available in a single lumen, 18 gauge configuration with usable length of 8 cm (3.15").

This document is a 510(k) summary for the Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System, seeking substantial equivalence to a predicate device. As such, it focuses on demonstrating equivalence through comparison of technological characteristics and nonclinical bench testing. It does not describe acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI-powered medical device.

The information provided confirms that the device is a physical intravascular catheter, not an AI/software device. Therefore, the specific requirements listed in the prompt (e.g., sample size for test/training sets, expert ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance) are not applicable to the content of this document.

The document highlights:

• Acceptance Criteria (Implied by equivalence): The "acceptance criteria" here are implicitly that the new device performs equivalently to the predicate device in relevant physical and functional characteristics, and that any differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.
• Reported Device Performance: This is demonstrated through a detailed comparison table (Section 7) and a list of "Nonclinical Testing" (Section 8).

Here's a breakdown of what is available and what is not relevant from your prompt:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't provide a typical "acceptance criteria" table with numerical targets as would be seen for an AI device. Instead, it presents a comparison to a predicate device. The "acceptance" is based on demonstrating that the subject device is "substantially equivalent" to the predicate, meaning it performs similarly and does not introduce new safety or effectiveness concerns.

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

• This is not an AI/software device, so there isn't a "test set" in the sense of a dataset for algorithm evaluation.
• The performance is evaluated through bench testing (listed in Section 8). Details on the specific sample sizes for these physical and material tests are not provided in this summary.
• Data provenance: Not applicable as it's not clinical data. The tests are laboratory-based, performed on manufactured devices.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/software device requiring expert labeling of data.
• The "ground truth" for a physical device is established through engineering specifications, material science, and performance standards.

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

• Not applicable. This concept is for resolving disagreements in expert annotations for AI datasets, not for physical device testing.

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. This device is a catheter, not an AI software intended to assist human readers.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm. Its performance is inherent in its physical properties and design.

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

• For physical devices like this, the "ground truth" for validating performance is typically derived from:
  • Engineering specifications and design requirements: Does it meet the intended physical dimensions, material properties, and functional outputs (e.g., flow rate, pressure limits)?
  • Recognized consensus standards: Compliance with ISO standards related to biocompatibility, sterilization, and general medical device safety.
  • Bench testing results: Data from rigorous laboratory tests simulating various use conditions.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning model.

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

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning model.

In summary, this 510(k) pertains to a physical medical device (catheter), not an AI/software product. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding AI device evaluation (test/training sets, expert ground truth, MRMC studies) is not relevant to this document. The "study" proving the device meets acceptance criteria is the comprehensive nonclinical bench testing outlined in Section 8, which demonstrates that the device performs functionally and safely, and is substantially equivalent to its predicate.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System permits access to the patient's peripheral vascular system for short-term venous use (less than 30 days) to sample blood, administer fluids, and perform high pressure contrast injections at a maximum of 325 psi.

The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System permits access to the patient's peripheral vascular system for short-term use (less than 30 days) to facilitate arterial blood pressure measurement and blood sampling.

The safety feature is intended to minimize the risk of sharps injuries.

The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter may be used for any patient population with consideration given to adequacy of anatomy and appropriateness of the procedure.

The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter may be used in hospitals, clinics, and other advanced clinical facilities.

The subject device, Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System, is a sterile, single use peripheral intravascular device designed to permit access to the peripheral vascular system. The Endurance catheter is intended to permit access to the patient's peripheral vascular system for short-term venous use to sample blood, administer fluids and for high pressure contrast injections at a maximum of 325 psi. The Arrow™ Endurance" Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System permits access to the patient's peripheral vascular system for short-term arterial use to monitor arterial blood pressure and blood sampling. The safety feature is intended to minimize the risk of sharps injuries.

The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System is available in single lumen, 20 and 22 gauge configurations with usable lengths of 6 cm (2.36'') and 8 cm (3.15").

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System, detailing its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This document focuses on the physical and functional aspects of a medical device (intravascular catheter) and its comparison to a similar existing device. It does not contain information related to an AI/ML powered medical device, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study, or details about ground truth establishment for a diagnostic algorithm.

Therefore, I cannot extract the specific information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and studies for an AI/ML device performance, as this information is not present in the provided document. The nonclinical testing listed relates to the physical performance and safety of the catheter itself, not to the diagnostic accuracy of an AI.

To elaborate on why the requested information cannot be found:

• Acceptance Criteria & Reported Device Performance (Table): The document provides a comparison of features, materials, and functional aspects of the subject device against a predicate device. It indicates "Same" or "Different" for many features and then lists various nonclinical bench tests in Section 8. However, it does not present quantitative acceptance criteria or reported performance for an AI/ML output. For example, it doesn't state "AI sensitivity > X%" or "AI accuracy > Y%" with corresponding actual performance.
• Sample Size (Test Set) & Data Provenance: This would be relevant for an AI study involving patient data. The document describes bench testing of a physical catheter, which does not typically involve a "test set" of patient data in the context of AI.
• Number of Experts, Qualifications & Adjudication Method: These points are critical for establishing ground truth in AI studies. Since this device is a physical catheter, there is no AI algorithm generating diagnostic outputs that would require expert adjudication for a ground truth.
• MRMC Comparative Effectiveness Study: This type of study assesses how AI affects human reader performance. As the device is not an AI, this study type is not applicable.
• Standalone Performance: This refers to the AI algorithm's performance without human intervention. Again, not applicable to a physical catheter.
• Type of Ground Truth: For an AI device, ground truth might be pathology, long-term outcomes, or expert consensus. For this physical catheter, "ground truth" is established through engineering specifications, material properties, and physical performance benchmarks.
• Sample Size for Training Set & How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established: These are fundamental elements of AI model development. Since this is not an AI device, there is no "training set" or corresponding ground truth establishment process in the context of machine learning.

In summary, the provided document describes the regulatory clearance for a physical medical device (intravascular catheter) through a substantial equivalence pathway, not an AI/ML-powered diagnostic or assistive device. Therefore, the information requested in your prompt is not available within this text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ARROW Endurance catheter system permits access to the patient's peripheral vascular system for short-term use to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids. The catheter may be used for high pressure injection. The safety feature is intended to minimize the risk of sharps injuries.

The Arrow® Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System is a sterile, single use peripheral intravascular device designed to permit access to the peripheral vascular system. The insertion device consists of a handle with an integral needle, a passivelyactivated needle protection mechanism, guide wire with slider advancer, catheter release tab, and single-lumen catheter. The catheter is advanced over the needle and threaded over a guide wire into a peripheral vessel. The catheter system consists of a catheter body, juncture hub, integrated extension tubing with Luer hub, vent plug to prevent blood leakage during insertion, and a clamp. The catheter is intended for short-term use to permit delivery of infusion therapies. infusion of blood and blood products, pressure monitoring, high pressure injection at a maximum of 325 psi, and withdrawal of blood. The Arrow Endurance Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System is available in single lumen, 18 ga. 20 ga. and 22 ga. configurations with usable lengths of 6 cm (2.36") and 8 cm (3.15").

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Arrow Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System (K163513). It describes non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but it does not include performance data typically found in clinical studies, nor does it define acceptance criteria in a quantifiable manner for device performance.

Therefore, many of the requested items cannot be answered from the provided text. The document focuses on demonstrating that modifications made to an existing device (guide wire design and catheter release colorant) do not raise new questions of safety or efficacy.

Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be answered:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance:

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in a quantifiable table format. The document implies acceptance criteria are met if the device performs comparably to the predicate and passes standard tests.
• Reported Device Performance: Not provided in quantifiable metrics. The document states that testing "verified that the changes presented no different questions of safety or efficacy" and that "the results of the risk assessment and resultant testing performed have demonstrated that the proposed guide wire design and catheter release colorant change present no different questions of safety or effectiveness."

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

• Sample Size: Not specified.
• Data Provenance: The testing is "Bench testing," meaning it's performed in a laboratory setting, not with human or animal subjects. Thus, data provenance in terms of country of origin or retrospective/prospective is not applicable.

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

• Not applicable. This is not a study involving ground truth established by human experts for a diagnostic or interpretative AI device.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable. This is not a study involving human adjudication of results.

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. This document describes a medical device (catheter system), not an AI imaging or diagnostic algorithm. No MRMC study was performed.

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

• Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• Not applicable in the context of expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data, as this is bench testing for a physical device. The "ground truth" for this type of testing is largely based on engineering specifications, material properties, and performance against established industry standards (e.g., ISO 10993-1, ISO 11070).

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device requiring a training set.

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

• Not applicable.

Summary of what can be extracted/inferred from the document:

• Device Name: Arrow Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System
• Purpose of the Submission: To demonstrate substantial equivalence for a modified version of an already marketed device (K152272 & K151513). The modifications are a guide wire design change (shortening flexible distal portion, removal of stainless steel coil/spring) and a catheter release colorant change.
• Nonclinical Testing Performed: Bench testing, including:
  • Biocompatibility (in accordance with ISO 10993-1)
  • Applicable requirements from ISO 11070 (Surface: Extraneous Matter and Defects, Surface: Lubricant, Guide wire Radio Detectability, Guide wire Fracture, Guide wire Flexure, Guide wire Tensile)
  • Guide wire Stiffness
  • Simulated Use Testing
• Conclusion of Testing: The testing verified that the changes presented no different questions of safety or efficacy, and the device is considered substantially equivalent to the cited predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ARROW Endurance catheter system permits access to the patient's peripheral vascular system for short-term use (less than 30 days) to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids. The catheter may be used for high pressure injection. The safety feature is intended to minimize the risk of sharps injuries.

The Arrow® Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System is a sterile, single use peripheral intravascular device designed to permit access to the peripheral vascular system. The insertion device consists of an ergonomically designed handle with an integral echogenic needle with a passively-activated needle protection mechanism, guide wire with slider advancer, catheter release tab, and single-lumen catheter is advanced over the needle and threaded over a guidewire into a peripheral vessel. Throughout catheter insertion. blood is contained within the device to aid in prevention of blood exposure. The catheter system consists of a translucent radiopaque polyurethane catheter, a needle with openings to enhance flashback visibility, a seal in the catheter hub designed to reduce blood exposure, a stabilization with a strain relief nose designed to reduce kinking at the hub of the catheter, integrated extension tubing with Luer hub, vent plug to prevent blood from leaking out during insertion, and a clamp to eliminate blood exposure when the vent plug is removed and replaced with a mating Luer component such as an infusion set or Luer access device.

The catheter is intended for short-term use (less than 30 days) to permit delivery of infusion therapies, infusion of blood and blood products, pressure monitoring, high pressure injection at a maximum of 325 psi, and withdrawal of blood.

The Arrow Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System is available in single lumen, 18, 20 and 22 gauge configurations with usable lengths of 6 cm (2.36") and 8 cm (3.15").

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Arrow Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System, based on the provided document:

This document describes a 510(k) submission for a product line extension of an already cleared device, not an entirely new device with a standalone performance study in the traditional sense of evaluating an AI or diagnostic algorithm. Therefore, many of the typical questions for AI/algorithm performance (like sample sizes for test sets, ground truth establishment for training sets, MRMC studies, etc.) are not applicable in this context. The core of this submission is demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria here are based on meeting established international standards and demonstrating functional equivalence to the predicate device. The "reported device performance" is essentially the successful completion of these tests.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Study Details (as applicable to a 510(k) of this nature)

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

   • The document does not specify a "test set" in the context of an algorithm's performance with a specific number of patient cases. Instead, it refers to bench testing performed on physical samples of the new catheter configurations (18 gauge and 22 gauge, 6cm and 8cm lengths).
   • Data Provenance: The testing was conducted by Arrow International, Inc.
   • The nature of the testing is retrospective in the sense that physical samples were manufactured and then subjected to various engineering and biological tests. It is not patient data.

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

   • Not Applicable. This is not a study involving human interpretation of data where ground truth is established by experts (e.g., radiologists). The "ground truth" for these tests is defined by engineering specifications, international standards (ISO, EN), and regulatory guidance (CDRH).

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

   • Not Applicable. As there are no human interpretations or disagreements to resolve, no adjudication method is used.

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 device is a peripheral catheter system, a physical medical device, not an AI or diagnostic tool. Therefore, no MRMC study was conducted.

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

   • Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

   • The "ground truth" for the performance of the catheter is based on engineering specifications, established international standards (ISO, EN), and regulatory guidance (CDRH Sharps Guidance). For example, passing particular flow rate tests, achieving specific tensile strength, or demonstrating a certain level of biocompatibility according to defined protocols and limits.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not Applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of machine learning for this physical device.

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device

The ARROW Endurance catheter system permits access to the patient's peripheral vascular system for short-term use (less than 30 days) to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids. The catheter may be used for high pressure injection. The safety feature is intended to minimize the risk of sharps injuries.

The Arrow® Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System is a sterile, single use peripheral intravascular device designed to permit access to the peripheral vascular system. The insertion device consists of an ergonomically designed handle with an integral echogenic needle with a passively-activated needle protection mechanism, guide wire with slider advancer, catheter release tab, and single-lumen catheter is advanced over the needle and threaded over a guide wire into a peripheral vessel. Throughout catheter insertion, blood is contained within the device to aid in prevention of blood exposure. The catheter system consists of a translucent radiopaque polyurethane catheter, a needle with openings to enhance flashback visibility, a seal in the catheter hub designed to reduce blood exposure, a stabilization platform with a strain relief nose designed to reduce kinking at the hub of the catheter, integrated extension tubing with Luer hub. vent plug to prevent blood from leaking out during insertion, and a clamp to eliminate blood exposure when the vent plug is removed and replaced with a mating Luer component such as an infusion set or Luer access device.

The catheter is intended for short-term use (less than 30 days) to permit delivery of infusion therapies, infusion of blood products, pressure monitoring, high pressure injection at a maximum of 325 psi, and withdrawal of blood.

The Arrow Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System is available in single lumen, 20 gauge configurations with usable lengths of 6 cm (2.36") and 8 cm (3.15").

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Arrow Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The FDA 510(k) summary provided here lists various tests performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence, but it does not explicitly state specific numerical acceptance criteria for each test. Instead, it states that "Bench testing performed on the Arrow Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System supports substantial equivalence of the subject device." The "reported device performance" is implicitly that the device met the requirements of the standards listed.

However, we can infer some performance aspects from the table of technological characteristics and the nonclinical testing section:

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

The document provides information on nonclinical (bench) testing. It does not specify the sample sizes used for each of the listed tests (e.g., how many catheters were tested for flow rate, tensile strength, etc.).

There is no mention of a clinical test set for evaluating device performance in humans. The testing described is entirely non-clinical bench testing.

Therefore, "data provenance" in terms of country of origin or retrospective/prospective does not apply here as it's not clinical data.

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

This question is not applicable. The device validation summarized here relies on bench testing and adherence to international standards (ISO, BS EN), not on expert human interpretation of clinical outputs or images. The "ground truth" for these engineering and material tests is defined by the specific requirements and measurement methodologies outlined in the referenced standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This question is not applicable as there is no human interpretation or subjective assessment framework described for the bench tests. Performance is measured against physical or chemical standards.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done

No, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. The submission describes nonclinical bench testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence, not a study evaluating human reader performance with or without AI assistance.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was Done

This question is not applicable. The device is a physical medical device (catheter system), not an algorithm or AI software. Therefore, there is no "standalone algorithm" performance to report.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the nonclinical testing, the "ground truth" is defined by:

• International and national standards: e.g., ISO 10993-1 (Biocompatibility), ISO 10555 (Sterile, single-use intravascular catheters), ISO 11070 (Sterile, single-use introducers), BS EN 20594-1 (Luer fittings), BS EN 1707 (Luer slip fittings), BS EN 13868 (Catheter kink resistance), ISO 23908 (Sharps injury protection).
• CDRH Sharps Guidance: Specific guidance from the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health regarding sharps safety.
• Engineering specifications and design requirements: As determined by Arrow International for the device's functional aspects like flow rate, tensile strength, and pressure limits.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This question is not applicable. The device is a physical medical device. There is no AI algorithm being trained, therefore no training set is relevant here.

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

This question is not applicable for the same reason as above.

Ask a specific question about this device