Search Results

The Biowy PICC catheter is indicated for short or long term peripheral access to the central venous system for intravenous therapy and power injection of contrast media. For blood sampling, infusion or therapy, use 4 French or larger catheter. The maximum recommended infusion rate is 5ml/sec for power injection of contrast media. The maximum pressure of power injectors used with the Biowy catheter may not exceed 300psi.

The Biowy PICC catheters are opened-ended radiopaque polyurethane catheters are sterile and for single use. They are available in 4F single lumen with 55cm usable length and 5F dual lumen with 60cm usable length. The catheters have a reverse taper design. Catheter shaft is marked with depth indicators, with "0" indicated to serve as a reference for the catheter taper point. Catheters are provided sterile in radiology and nursing configurations for single use. Colorants were added to the catheter shaft and hub to differentiate components. The extension leg, junction and clamp were printed with markings to identify the catheter and to include information to facilitate proper use of the device.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Biowy PICC Catheter, which is a medical device and not an AI/ML software device. Therefore, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study, standalone algorithm performance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, or training set details are not applicable in this context. The acceptance criteria and performance are based on physical and biological testing of the catheter.

Here's the information pulled from the document regarding the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes for each specific test. The data provenance is not mentioned, and tests appear to be laboratory-based design verification rather than clinical data from human subjects. The study is a non-clinical performance test.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

Not applicable, as this is a medical device clearance based on non-clinical performance testing and biocompatibility, not an AI/ML algorithm requiring expert ground truth for interpretation of images or other data.

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

Not applicable. This type of adjudication is for studies involving human interpretation or assessments, such as in clinical trials or AI/ML evaluations.

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 is for AI/ML software devices, not a physical medical device like a PICC catheter.

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

Not applicable. This is for AI/ML software devices, not a physical medical device.

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

The "ground truth" for this device is based on established engineering and biological standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM, USP). The device's performance is compared against these predetermined specifications and, in some cases for biocompatibility, against a legally marketed predicate device (5Fr DL PowerPICC® Catheter, K051672).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device