Search Results

The BD Careflow™ Central Venous Catheter is an intravascular catheter that is introduced into a patient's vascular system for short-term use (less than 30 days) using an introducer and guidewire. The catheter is used to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids.

The BD Careflow™ Central Venous Catheter (CVC) is a polyurethane, radiopaque catheter. It is identical to the BD Hydrocath™ CVC except that the BD Careflow product does not have a hydrophilic coating.

The BD Careflow product line includes the same range of product offerings as the BD Hydrocath product line: 60-300mm lengths, 2.5-9.5 French sizes, and 1 – 5 lumens.

BD Careflow catheters are sold in convenience kit form containing components to facilitate catheter placement, such as a guidewire, introducer needle, introducer catheter, vessel dilator, syringe, injection caps, slide clamps, and movable suture wing. The kit components are identical to those that were provided in the BD Hydrocath CVC convenience kits.

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification summary for the BD Careflow™ Central Venous Catheter. Based on the document, it is not a study that proves a device meets acceptance criteria in the way you've described (i.e., performance metrics, sample sizes, expert consensus, etc., typically associated with AI/software device evaluation).

Instead, this document is a submission to the FDA to demonstrate substantial equivalence of a new medical device (BD Careflow™ CVC) to a previously cleared predicate device (BD Hydrocath™ CVC). The core of this submission focuses on showing that the new device is essentially the same as the predicate, with a minor modification (absence of a hydrophilic coating), and thus does not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

Here's a breakdown of why your requested information isn't fully applicable and what can be extracted:

• This is not an AI/software device: The BD Careflow™ Central Venous Catheter is a physical medical device (an intravascular catheter), not a software or AI-powered system. Therefore, the concepts of "test set," "training set," "ground truth," "MRMC study," "standalone performance," or "human readers improve with AI" do not apply.
• "Acceptance Criteria" here relates to Substantial Equivalence: For a 510(k) submission, "acceptance criteria" are implicitly met by demonstrating that the new device has "substantially equivalent" technological characteristics and performance to a legally marketed predicate device, and does not pose new safety or effectiveness concerns.

However, I can extract the relevant information regarding the comparison made between the new device and its predicate:

This document describes a submission for a physical medical device, not software or AI. Therefore, the concepts of "acceptance criteria" in terms of performance metrics like sensitivity/specificity, or studies involving "expert consensus" for "ground truth," "training sets," or "MRMC studies" are not applicable to this type of medical device submission.

The "study" described is a non-clinical side-by-side comparison of the modified device (BD Careflow) and its predicate (BD Hydrocath) to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Here's a summary based on the provided text, addressing your points where applicable:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For this type of device (physical CVC), "acceptance criteria" are met by demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through comparative testing of key physical and functional characteristics. The performance reported is that these characteristics are substantially equivalent between the new and predicate device.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The text mentions "Side-by-side testing," implying that samples of both the BD Careflow and BD Hydrocath were used for the comparative tests.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). It's "nonclinical tests" meaning in-vitro or bench testing, not human patient data.
• Retrospective or Prospective: Not applicable as these are non-clinical, bench tests.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a non-clinical, comparative test of physical device attributes. Ground truth would be established by the measurement instruments and protocols themselves, not expert consensus on diagnostic images or clinical outcomes.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable. As per point 3, there's no expert adjudication involved in mechanical and leakage testing.

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

• No. This is not relevant for a physical catheter device.

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

• Not Applicable. This is not a software or algorithm-based device.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Direct Measurement/Engineering Specifications: The ground truth for tensile strength, leakage, and stiffness would be derived from direct measurements using calibrated equipment against established engineering specifications or material standards.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not a machine learning or AI device.

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

• Not Applicable. As per point 8, there's no training set.

In summary: The provided document is a 510(k) submission for a physical medical device. It demonstrates "substantial equivalence" of a new device to a predicate device through non-clinical, side-by-side engineering tests. It does not describe a study in the context of performance metrics, clinical trials, or AI/software validation as implied by your detailed questions.

Ask a specific question about this device