Search Results

Disposable Hemodialysis Access Catheter Sets, including Single-lumen and Dual-lumen, are intended to attain long or short term (less than 30 days) vascular access for hemodialysis via the internal jugular, subclavian or femoral vein.

Disposable Hemodialysis Access Catheter Sets, including Single-lumen and Dual-lumen, are intended to attain long or short term (less than 30 days) vascular access for hemodialysis via the internal jugular, subclavian or femoral vein. It consists of a catheter, a puncture needle, a guide wire and a dilator. The set is provided EO sterilized.

The provided text describes a medical device, a "Disposable Hemodialysis Access Catheter Set," and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a study proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria based on performance metrics such as accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity commonly associated with AI/ML devices or diagnostic tools.

The "Test Conclusion" section outlines performance tests conducted, but these are primarily engineering, material, and sterilization validation tests, not clinical performance studies measuring effectiveness in a patient population or against specific clinical endpoints.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for an AI/ML device or diagnostic tool study, such as sample size for test sets, data provenance, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth for training sets, are not applicable or cannot be extracted from this document.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and the "reported device performance" in the context of the engineering and validation tests described.

Here's the information based on the provided text, recognizing the limitations:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Surfaces
• Dimensions
• Mechanical Strength
• Leakage
• Flow Rate
• Fatigue | "The test results demonstrated that the proposed devices comply with the performance standards" |
  | Recirculation & Clamping | Recirculation and Repeated Clamp Tests | (Implicitly acceptable as part of overall design specifications met) |
  | Sterilization | Per ISO 11135-1:2006 (SAL of 10^-6, acceptable sterilant residual) | "The results demonstrated that the sterilization method and cycle of the proposed device could reach SAL of 10^-6, and the sterilant residual was acceptable" |
  | Package Integrity | Seal Strength, Internal Pressure, Dye Penetration | "Performed to evaluate the package integrity of the proposed device to demonstrate that the immediate package could maintain the sterility during its shelf life." (Implicitly acceptable as meeting design specifications) |

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified. The document refers to "laboratory testing" and various ISO standards, which would involve a defined sample size for each test (e.g., number of catheters for mechanical strength, number of samples for biocompatibility), but these specific numbers are not disclosed in this summary.
• Data Provenance: The tests were conducted by Foshan Nanhai Bai He Medical Technology Co., LTD, which is based in Foshan, Guangdong, China. These are laboratory data, not clinical patient data. The nature of these tests is prospective for the device under submission, meaning the tests were performed specifically for this 510(k) submission.

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. These are engineering and material validation tests conducted in a laboratory setting against specified standards, not diagnostic or clinical performance studies requiring expert ground truth or assessment of patient data.

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

• Not applicable. This concept pertains to resolving discrepancies in expert interpretations for clinical ground truth, which is not relevant to the described laboratory validation 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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device or a diagnostic imaging device subject to MRMC studies.

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

• Not applicable. This is a physical medical device (catheter set), not an algorithm or AI solution.

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

• For the described tests, the "ground truth" refers to the established specifications within the cited ISO standards (e.g., specific tensile strength values, defined biocompatibility parameters, required sterility assurance levels). These are objective, measurable parameters, not clinical ground truth derived from patient data.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a "training set."

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