Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K193542
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2020-10-08

    (293 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    876.5860
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    Clearum HS Family, Clearum HS Models: HS 13, HS 15, HS 17, HS 20, HS 22

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The Clearum™ HS dialyzer family is intended for use in acute or chronic renal failure patients requiring hemodialysis.

    Device Description

    The Clearum™ HS family consists of dialyzers comprised by a cylindrical polypropylene body containing a bundle of microporous hollow fibers made of polyethersulfone (PES) secured to the ends by means of hot-melt polvurethane resin.

    The devices are available in different models which differentiate by membrane surface area, ranging from 1.3 to 2.2 m², and for the dimensions of the outer cylindrical body in terms of length and height (306 x 41 mm for the surface areas in the range 1.3-1.5 m², 306 x 44 mm for the surface area 1.7 m² and 366 x 44 mm for the surface areas in the range 2.0-2.2 m²).

    Similar to other commercially available hemodialyzers, blood and dialysate flow in a countercurrent in their respective compartments. In this process, toxins and fluid are transferred across the semipermeable membrane from the blood to the dialysate compartment.

    The dialyzers are sterilized using moist heat with saturated steam, have a non-pyrogenic fluid path, and are labeled for single use.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes the Clearum™ HS family of dialyzers and their comparison to a predicate device, the Polyflux H models, to demonstrate substantial equivalence for FDA 510(k) clearance. This report does not describe acceptance criteria for an AI/ML powered medical device, but rather for a physical medical device. It focuses on in-vitro test results and comparison to a predicate device.

    Here's an analysis of the provided information, noting where specific requested details (like those for AI/ML studies) are not available in this physical device submission:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    The submission does not explicitly list "acceptance criteria" in a table format for each performance metric, but rather states that "The results of the testing met the performance specifications demonstrating that the Clearum™ HS family performs as intended." It also aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device.

    The "performance specifications" are implicitly derived from the established performance characteristics of the predicate device and the industry standards (ISO 8637-1:2017).

    Performance MetricClearum™ HS Family Performance (Implicit)Predicate Device Performance (Polyflux H) (Implicit)Acceptance Criteria (Implicit)
    Priming VolumeMet performance specifications; demonstrated substantial equivalence to predicate.Polyflux 140H: 94 ml; Polyflux 170H: 115 ml; Polyflux 210H: 125 ml (These are the predicate's reported values, implying the Clearum™ HS values are comparable and within acceptable variation for substantial equivalence).
    Clearum™ HS: HS 13: 84ml, HS 15: 95ml, HS 17: 105ml, HS 20: 120ml, HS 22: 126mlPerformance must meet established design specifications and demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device, consistent with ISO 8637-1:2017.
    Pressure Drop (Blood Compartment)Met performance specifications; demonstrated substantial equivalence to predicate.Not explicitly stated for predicate in summary, but comparative testing was done.Performance must meet established design specifications and demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device, consistent with ISO 8637-1:2017.
    Pressure Drop (Dialysate Compartment)Met performance specifications; demonstrated substantial equivalence to predicate.Not explicitly stated for predicate in summary, but comparative testing was done.Performance must meet established design specifications and demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device, consistent with ISO 8637-1:2017.
    Ultrafiltration CoefficientMet performance specifications; demonstrated substantial equivalence to predicate.Not explicitly stated for predicate in summary, but comparative testing was done.Performance must meet established design specifications and demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device, consistent with ISO 8637-1:2017.
    Sieving Coefficient (Albumin, Myoglobin, Inulin)Met performance specifications; demonstrated substantial equivalence to predicate.Not explicitly stated for predicate in summary, but comparative testing was done.Performance must meet established design specifications and demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device, consistent with ISO 8637-1:2017.
    Clearance (Urea, Creatinine, Phosphate, Vitamin B12)Met performance specifications; demonstrated substantial equivalence to predicate.Not explicitly stated for predicate in summary, but comparative testing was done.Performance must meet established design specifications and demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device, consistent with ISO 8637-1:2017.
    Hemocompatibility (mechanical hemolysis)Met performance specifications; demonstrated substantial equivalence to predicate.Not explicitly stated for predicate in summary, but comparative testing was done.Performance must meet established design specifications and demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device, consistent with ISO 8637-1:2017 and ISO 10993-1.
    SterilityEffectiveness of production techniques to assure sterility demonstrated.Moist heat with saturated steam.Must be sterile.
    Non-pyrogenicityEffectiveness of production techniques to assure non-pyrogenicity demonstrated. Device has a non-pyrogenic fluid path.Not explicitly stated for predicate in summary.Must be non-pyrogenic.
    BiocompatibilityIn accordance with ISO 10993-1 and FDA Guidance "Use of International Standard ISO-10993, "Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices Part 1: Evaluation and Testing" (limited to external communicating device, circulating blood, prolonged contact duration).Not explicitly stated for predicate in summary for comparison, but predicate would have met similar standards.Must comply with ISO 10993-1 for biological evaluation, specific to external communicating (circulating blood, prolonged contact).

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

    • Sample Size for Test Set: The document states "In vitro testing was conducted on the entire Clearum™ HS dialyzers family" and "For comparative purposes, the same testing, was also conducted on the Polyflux H predicate device, when applicable." However, the exact number of units tested (sample size) for each model or for the overall family is not specified in the provided text.
    • Data Provenance: The testing was "in-vitro," meaning it was conducted in a laboratory setting. There is no mention of human subject data, retrospective or prospective studies in the context of device performance. The manufacturer, Bellco S.r.l., is located in Mirandola MO, Italy, suggesting the tests were likely conducted there or at an affiliated lab.

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

    This information is not applicable to this type of device submission. For physical medical devices like dialyzers, "ground truth" is established through physical and chemical testing against recognized standards (e.g., ISO, FDA guidance) and comparison to the predicate device's established performance. It does not involve expert adjudication of clinical data in the way an AI/ML device would.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    This information is not applicable. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are used for resolving discrepancies in expert interpretations of data, typically in AI/ML validation studies. For this physical device, performance is measured objectively through lab tests.

    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

    This information is not applicable. This is a submission for a physical medical device (hemodialyzer), not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive technology. Therefore, no MRMC study or AI-assisted human reader improvement metrics are relevant or discussed.

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

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

    7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

    For this device, the "ground truth" is based on:

    • Industry Standards: Compliance with ISO 8637-1:2017 ("Cardiovascular implants and extracorporeal systems - Hemodialysers, hemodiafilters, hemofilters and hemoconcentrators") and ISO 10993-1 ("Biological evaluation of medical devices").
    • FDA Guidance: "Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifications for Conventional and High Permeability Hemodialyzers" (1998) and "Use of International Standard ISO-10993, "Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices Part 1: Evaluation and Testing."
    • Predicate Device Performance: The established, legally marketed performance characteristics of the Polyflux H dialyzer family. The new device demonstrates "substantial equivalence" to the predicate.

    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

    This information is not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of an AI/ML algorithm for this physical medical device.

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

    This information is not applicable as there is no training set for an algorithm.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1