Search Results

Hemodialysis with these dialyzers is indicated for patients with acute or chronic renal failure when conservative therapy is judged to be inadequate. It may also be indicated in the treatment of patients intoxicated with poisons or drugs. These dialyzers are indicated for single use or reuse. If the dialyzer is reused on the same patient, the reuse procedure and disinfectant specified in the Direction Insert must be followed. No other reuse procedure or disinfectant has been evaluated for clinical acceptability.

Models CAHP-110, CAHP-130, CAHP-150, CAHP-170, CAHP-210 Hemodialyzers

I am sorry, but based on the provided text, there is no information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves a device meets those criteria. The document is a 510(k) summary for a hemodialyzer, primarily discussing its regulatory classification, intended use, and substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It mentions "Clinical data was collected according to the FDA Guidance for Hemodialyzer Reuse Labeling" and "In Vivo and In Vitro performance data, and directions for reuse have been included in the labeling," but does not provide details of any specific study, acceptance criteria, sample sizes, ground truth establishment methods, or expert qualifications.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria, as the necessary information is not present in the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

Hemodialysis with these dialyzers is indicated for patients with acute or chronic renal failure when conservative therapy is judged to be inadequate. It may also be indicated in the treatment of patients intoxicated with poisons or drugs. These dialyzers are indicated for single use or reuse. If the dialyzer is reused on the same patient, the reuse procedure and disinfectant specified in the Direction Insert must be followed. No other reuse procedure or disinfectant has been evaluated for clinical acceptability.

Model CAHP-90 Hemodialyzer

The provided text describes specific acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria.

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

2. Sample sized 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 size for a "test set" in the context of device performance. The clinical data was collected "according to the FDA Guidance for Hemodialyzer Reuse Labeling," which suggests a prospective clinical study, though the exact nature (e.g., number of patients) is not provided. The origin of the clinical data is not specified. Other tests, like pyrogen testing, refer to JMHW Notification (Japanese) and Japanese Pharmacopeia, implying that some testing relates to Japanese regulatory standards, but doesn't specify if the samples themselves were from Japan.

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):

This information is not provided in the document. The document describes compliance with established standards and guidelines (e.g., USP, AAMI, FDA guidance, Japanese Pharmacopeia) for device testing, rather than a system where human experts establish ground truth for a discrete test set.

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

This information is not applicable and not provided. The document outlines a typical regulatory submission for a medical device involving adherence to performance standards and safety guidelines, not a comparative study relying on expert adjudication of a test set.

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:

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This device, a hemodialyzer, is a piece of medical equipment, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool that would typically involve human readers or AI assistance in interpretation.

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

This concept is not applicable to the device described. The hemodialyzer is a physical device used in treatment, not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by adherence to documented performance standards and regulatory guidelines rather than a clinical ground truth like pathology or outcomes data in the typical sense of diagnostic devices. For example:

• Biological safety: Compliance with USP XXI Class VI materials.
• Sterility: Achieved SAL of 1 x 10-6 validated by AAMI guidelines.
• Pyrogenicity: Meeting standards of JMHW Notification and Japanese Pharmacopeia.
• Particle limits: Comparison to USP 23 and ASTM F25-68.
• Functional integrity: Conformance to manufacturing specifications.
• Clinical performance: Demonstrated by "In Vivo and In Vitro performance data" and compliance with "FDA Guidance for Hemodialyzer Reuse Labeling."

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. The CAHP™ Hemodialyzer is a physical medical device, not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device