Search Results

The DBT™ is indicated for use in cardiopulmonary bypass procedures for the removal of gaseous microemboli.

The DBT™, Dynamic Bubble Trap is a sterile device with a non-pyrogenic fluid pathway. It is intended for single use only, in the arterial line of an extracorporeal circuit during cardiopulmonary bypass procedures. It is designed to remove gaseous microemboli from the arterial line of a cardiopulmonary bypass circuit.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the DYNAMIC BUBBLE TRAP (DBT™), an arterial filter. It does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria or a study proving that the device meets those criteria in the typical format of a clinical or performance study report with metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy.

Instead, the document states: "Testing was performed in accordance with the Guidance Performance Data: for Cardiopulmonary Bypass Arterial Line Blood Filter 510(k) Submissions, dated November 29, 2000. The recommended special controls have been applied to minimize all identified potential risks to health. Bench testing demonstrates that the device has been designed to minimize the identified potential risks to a patient's health. Based upon the performance studies and the proposed Conclusion: device labeling, the DBT™, Dynamic Bubble Trap, is substantially equivalent to the identified predicate devices in terms of intended use, safety, and effectiveness."

This indicates that the assessment was primarily based on bench testing for substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Pall EC Plus Filter (K834380)) and adherence to FDA guidance for arterial line blood filters. This type of submission generally relies on demonstrating that the new device performs as safely and effectively as a legally marketed predicate device, rather than providing specific performance metrics against pre-defined acceptance criteria in a quantitative table.

Therefore, many of the requested details about a study with specific acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert ground truth, etc., cannot be extracted from this 510(k) summary. The summary focuses on regulatory approval based on substantial equivalence, not a detailed performance study with quantifiable acceptance criteria.

However, based on the information provided, here's what can be answered:

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

The document does not explicitly list quantitative acceptance criteria in a table format with corresponding device performance metrics. It refers to "bench testing" and compliance with FDA guidance. The "performance studies" mentioned are implicitly comparing the DBT™ to the predicate device in terms of safety and effectiveness, as per the FDA's substantial equivalence pathway.

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

This information is not provided in the 510(k) summary. The document mentions "bench testing" but does not detail sample sizes, data provenance, or study design (retrospective/prospective).

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 510(k) summary as the evaluation appears to be based on bench testing of the physical device's engineering and performance characteristics, not expert interpretation of data.

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

This information is not provided in the 510(k) summary. Adjudication methods are typically relevant for studies involving human interpretation or clinical endpoints, which is not described here.

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

An MRMC study is not mentioned in the 510(k) summary. This type of study is usually relevant for AI/radiology devices. The DBT™ is a physical medical device (an arterial filter), not an AI algorithm.

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

This question is not applicable as the DBT™ is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

The document refers to "bench testing" to demonstrate that the device is "designed to minimize the identified potential risks to a patient's health." The "ground truth" for such testing would likely involve physical measurements and engineering standards related to the device's ability to remove gaseous microemboli from blood in an in-vitro setup, consistent with the FDA guidance for such devices. Specific details are not provided.

8. The sample size for the training set

This question is not applicable as the DBT™ is a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm that requires a training set. The "bench testing" is a form of validation, not training.

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

This question is not applicable as the DBT™ is a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device