Search Results

The Cook® Spectrum® 2 MRC Central Venous Catheter is a single-use, antibiotic impregnated, antimicrobial coated, power injectable catheter that is percutaneously inserted into the vasculature using the Seldinger technique, and advanced over a wire guide until its tip is positioned above the superior vena cava-right atrium (SVC-RA) junction within the lower third of the SVC. The Cook® Spectrum® 2 MRC Central Venous Catheter, 7 Fr triple lumen CVC, is made from an aliphatic polyether-based polyurethane catheter shaft with a radiopaque constituent and a bonded soft distal tip. The catheter shaft is impregnated with Spectrum® (minocycline, rifampin) antimicrobial agents and coated with chlorhexidine antiseptic. The Cook® Spectrum® 2 MRC Central Venous Catheter is not intended for treatment of existing infections in patients; the presence of the three antimicrobial agents has been shown to reduce microbial colonization of the catheter. The antimicrobial activity of these agents is localized to the internal and external catheter surfaces. The working length (15, 20, or 25 cm) of the catheter is measured from distal tip to the double bar line approximately 1.5 cm distal to the manifold. The catheter shaft features centimeter length markings. The proximal portion of the Cook® Spectrum® 2 MRC Central Venous Catheter, like the predicate catheter, has three extension tubes with injection-molded Luer hubs connected to a manifold. The injectionmolded manifold with suture wings serves as the transition point for lumens of the extension tubes into each lumen of the catheter shaft. All three lumens are power injectable; the maximum flow rate is labeled on the hub of each extension tube.

AI/ML Overview

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Cook® Spectrum® 2 MRC Central Venous Catheter. It outlines the device's characteristics, indications for use, and a comparison to a predicate device to establish substantial equivalence. However, this document does not describe a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/ML medical device, nor does it contain the requested detailed information regarding test set size, data provenance, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or ground truth establishment.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating the substantial equivalence of a medical device (a central venous catheter) to a previously cleared predicate device. This is typically done through non-clinical performance testing (e.g., tensile strength, flow rate, biocompatibility) and a comparison of technological characteristics, rather than clinical studies with human readers or AI algorithms.

Therefore, I cannot extract the information required to answer your specific questions related to acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance as if it were an AI/ML device. The document does not contain this type of data or study design.

Here's what I can infer from the document regarding the acceptance criteria and performance, keeping in mind it's for a traditional medical device, not an AI/ML one:

Implied Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Based on Substantial Equivalence and Performance Testing):

The "acceptance criteria" here are implicitly tied to demonstrating the Cook® Spectrum® 2 MRC Central Venous Catheter is as safe and effective as the predicate device. This is achieved by showing that the new device meets relevant industry standards and performs similarly to the predicate in key technical areas.

Acceptance Criteria (Implied)	Reported Device Performance
Biocompatibility: Meet ISO 10993-1 requirements for externally communicating devices with circulating blood contact for up to a 30-day duration.	Addressed: Cytotoxicity, Sensitization, Irritation, Hemolysis, Complement Activation, Hemocompatibility, Materials Mediated Pyrogenicity, Implantation (4-week), Chronic Toxicity, Carcinogenicity, Genotoxicity were evaluated and adequately addressed. Particulate matter testing met USP acceptance criteria.
Microbiological Performance: Demonstrate reduction of microbial colonization equivalent to predicate.	Demonstrated: Studied in an In Vitro Microbial Colonization Model (simulated elution up to 4 weeks). Results showed lack of development of antimicrobial resistance and comparable log reductions in colonizing microbe concentrations to predicate and reference devices. The effectiveness was evaluated using in vitro methods; no correlation between in vitro and clinical outcome has currently been ascertained.
Physical/Mechanical Performance: Adherence to FDA-recognized standards for intravascular catheters (e.g., tensile strength, flow rate, power injection, static burst, liquid/air leakage, kink, radiopacity, luer hub compatibility, bending fatigue, insertability, chemical injectate compatibility, extension tube clamp functionality, dimensional testing, MRI safety).	Demonstrated: The device was tested and conformed with BS EN ISO 10555-1, BS EN ISO 10555-3, BS EN 13868, ASTM F2503-13, ASTM F640, BS EN ISO 80369-7:2017. Specific tests performed include tensile strength, flow rate, power injection, static burst, liquid leakage, air leakage, kink (flow), MRI safety, radiopacity, luer hub compatibility, bending fatigue, insertability, chemical injectate compatibility, extension tube clamp functionality, dimensional testing, and sterilization. (Specific numerical performance values are not provided in this summary).
Sterilization & Packaging: Meet sterility assurance levels (10-6), demonstrate package integrity and shelf life.	Demonstrated: Terminal sterilization by E-beam and secondary EO sterilization (ANSI/AAMI/ISO 11135-1) for specific packaging configurations. EO residuals conform to ISO 10993-7. Package integrity testing (ISTA 3A, ASTM F88/F88-15, ASTM F1929-15) and 6-month shelf life validation (ASTM F1980-16) were performed.
Substantial Equivalence: Differences from predicate do not raise new or different questions of safety or effectiveness.	Concluded: "The differences between the predicate and the subject device do not raise any new or different questions of safety or effectiveness." The device is "substantially equivalent to the Cook® Spectrum®/Spectrum® Glide Central Venous Catheter with respect to the indications for use, target populations, treatment method, and technological characteristics."

Since the requested information pertains to AI/ML device studies, and this document is for a traditional catheter, the following points cannot be addressed from the provided text:

Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable in this context. The "test set" refers to physical, chemical, and biological tests on the device itself.
Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for an AI/ML device involves expert annotations of data (e.g., images), which is not relevant here.
Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
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 not an AI/ML device, and no human reader studies are described.
If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable, as no ground truth for image interpretation or diagnosis is being established.
The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. There is no AI/ML algorithm being trained.
How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a Question

Ask a specific question about this device

Page 1 of 1