Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(72 days)
The 'Blood Tubing Accessory with CLAVE Connector' is intended for use in hemodialysis and other chronic applications where blood sampling is required. Luer-locking adaptors allow secure, in-line placement between the blood tubing set and the catheter or venipuncture device. Use of a CLAVE Connector allows the clinician needle-free blood withdrawal.
The blood tubing accessory with CLAVE Connector is a single use, sterile, non-pyrogenic device intended for use as an adjunct to blood tubing sets or venipuncture devices for needle-free withdrawal of blood.
This submission describes a medical device, the "Blood Tubing Accessory with CLAVE Connector," not an AI/ML powered device. As such, the information provided does not align with the requested categories for AI/ML device studies. I will provide the acceptance criteria and study information that is available in the provided text.
Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (based on non-AI/ML device information):
Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|
Hemolysis (no significant hemolysis) | A hemolysis study conducted by an independent laboratory found no significant hemolysis occurs with the use of the CLAVE Connector. |
Sterile barrier maintenance (for 6 days/144 hours with 24 activations/day) | A microbial challenge study showed that the CLAVE Connector maintained a sterile barrier for six days or 144 hours while administering 24 repeat activations per day with a standard disinfection protocol. These results indicate that the CLAVE Connector, when using a standard disinfection protocol, did not increase infection rates under worst-case clinical simulation. |
Study Details (based on non-AI/ML device information):
- Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. The studies mentioned are non-clinical laboratory studies, not based on patient data in the context of an "AI/ML test set."
- Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for non-clinical studies like hemolysis and microbial challenge is typically established by laboratory testing methodologies and standards, not expert consensus in the diagnostic sense.
- Adjudication method: Not applicable. This applies to diagnostic assessments, not non-clinical device performance studies.
- If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: No. This is a non-AI/ML device; an MRMC study is not relevant.
- If a standalone study was done: Yes, the described studies (hemolysis and microbial challenge) are standalone performance tests for the device's physical and biological properties.
- The type of ground truth used:
- Hemolysis: The ground truth would be based on established laboratory methods and standards for quantifying hemolysis in blood samples.
- Microbial challenge: The ground truth would be based on microbiological techniques to assess sterility and barrier integrity, likely quantifying microbial growth or penetration under controlled conditions.
- The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This device does not involve AI/ML.
- How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. This device does not involve AI/ML.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1