Search Results

The FASTI™ Intraosseous Infusion System is indicated for use in establishing a sternal intraosseous access route in adult and adolescent patients (12 years of age and older) requiring vascular administration of drugs or fluids to facilitate emergency resuscitation.

The FASTResponder™ Sternal Intraosseous Device is indicated for use in establishing a sternal intraosseous access route in adult and adolescent patients (12 years of age and older) requiring vascular administration of drugs or fluid to facilitate emergency resuscitation.

The FASTITM and FASTResponder™ Sternal Intraosseous Devices were designed to provide an alternative to intravenous infusion access of the circulatory system. The devices utilize intraosseous infusion to facilitate emergency resuscitation with the use of fluids and drugs. They were designed for use on the manubrium, the upper (superior) portion of the sternum.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Teleflex Medical FAST1™ Intraosseous Infusion System and FASTResponder™ Sternal Intraosseous Device. It is a submission to the FDA for a labeling change to an existing device, not for a new device requiring extensive performance data or clinical trials for substantial equivalence.

Therefore, the document explicitly states: "No performance testing was needed to support this change." (Page 7, Section VII. Performance Data).

This means the document does not contain information regarding:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
2. Sample sizes used for a test set or data provenance for such a test.
3. Number of experts used to establish ground truth or their qualifications.
4. Adjudication methods for a test set.
5. Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies or their effect sizes.
6. Standalone performance studies (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance).
7. The type of ground truth used.
8. The sample size for a training set.
9. How the ground truth for a training set was established.

The entire submission is focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence based on the device's technological characteristics remaining unchanged, with the only modification being the addition of contraindications to the product's labeling. The "Performance Data" section explicitly confirms that no new performance testing was conducted or required for this specific 510(k) submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The FAST1™ Intraosseous Infusion System is indicated for use in establishing a sternal intraosseous access route in adult and adolescent patients (12 years of age and older) requiring vascular administration of drugs or fluids to facilitate emergency resuscitation.

The FASTI™ Intraosseous Infusion System has been designed to provide alternative access of the circulatory system to intravenous infusion. It utilizes intraosseous infusion in order to facilitate emergency resuscitation through the use of fluids and drugs. The device has been designed for use on the manubrium, the upper (superior) portion of the sternum.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the FAST1™ Intraosseous Infusion System. It details an expansion of the intended use population to include adult and adolescent patients (12 years and older).

Based on the provided text, there is no study described that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria in terms of quantitative performance metrics. The submission primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than presenting a performance study with defined acceptance criteria and results.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text, with "N/A" where the information is not present:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
   • Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in terms of quantitative performance metrics for a new study. The acceptance criterion for this 510(k) appears to be "Substantial Equivalence" to predicate devices.
   • Reported Device Performance: The primary "performance" reported is that the device has the "same intended use and the same or similar technological characteristics as the predicate devices." (Section VII)

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: N/A. No specific test set or data from a performance study is described. The submission relies on the substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: N/A. No ground truth establishment by experts for a test set is described.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: N/A. No test set requiring adjudication is described.
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: N/A. This device is not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool, but a medical device for intraosseous infusion. Therefore, an MRMC study as typically performed for AI products is not applicable here.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: N/A. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): N/A. No ground truth is described in the context of a new performance study. The ground for decision-making is substantial equivalence.
8. The sample size for the training set: N/A. No algorithm training is described.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: N/A. No algorithm training or corresponding ground truth establishment is described.

Summary of the study that proves acceptance criteria (as per the document):

The "study" presented is a substantial equivalence argument. The manufacturer asserts that the FAST1™ Intraosseous Infusion System (with expanded intended use population) is substantially equivalent to two predicate devices:

• The original FAST1™ Intraosseous Infusion System cleared under K072487.
• The EZ-IO Intraosseous Infusion System from Vidacare Corporation cleared under K052195.

The basis for this "proof" is that the modified device has the "same intended use and the same or similar technological characteristics" as the predicate devices. The document explicitly states: "The differences in technological characteristics between the modified and the predicate devices do not raise issues with the safety and effectiveness of the modified FAST1™ Intraosseous Infusion System." This implies that prior safety and effectiveness data for the predicate devices, and the inherent similarities, are considered sufficient evidence for accepting this expansion of intended use. There is no new clinical or performance study detailed in this 510(k) summary to establish novel acceptance criteria or performance metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device

The FAST1™ Intraosseous Infusion System is indicated for use in establishing a sternal intraosseous access route in adult patients requiring vascular administration of drugs or fluids to facilitate emergency resuscitation

The modified FASTI™ Intraosseous Infusion System is very similar to the FAST1™ Intraosseous Infusion System previously cleared under 510(k) K970380. It consists of a primary component - the infusion tube, and secondary components - the introducer for placing it through the sternum of the patient, the target/strain-relief patch, protector dome and sharps plug. The minor difference is that the infusion tube of the modified FAST1™ Intraosseous Infusion System can be removed from the patient's sternum by directly pulling on the infusion tubing, whereas the predicate device utilizes a remover tool to remove the infusion tube from the patient's sternum.

Both products are single use, hand-held, manually operated passive devices, (it has no internal energy source). Both products have an infusion tube with a sharp stainless steel tip, a flexible shaft and a standard Luer connector. For both products the user grasps an introducer handle attached to the infusion needle, and pushes the needle tip through the skin and overlying tissue into the sternum of the subject. Fluids or drugs are delivered through the needle to the marrow space of the sternum, and flow out the emissary veins of the sternum into the venous circulation.

Both devices use the same pusher handle and method to insert the infusion needle to the correct penetration depth in the sternum; a mechanism inside the introducer handle disconnects the handle from the infusion needle, preventing the user from pushing the needle any further. The principal of the mechanism is identical for both devices in that it detects the position of the anterior surface of the cortical bone of the sternum, and relates the position of the tip of the infusion needle to the surface of the cortical bone.

Both devices utilize the same adhesive patch which is applied to the top of the patient's chest which the user aligns with the supra-sternal notch of the patient. The position of the recommended insertion site is the same for both devices and is marked on the patch to aid in land marking. Also, the same patch and an associated cover for both devices provide protection and strain-relief to the site and the installed Infusion Tube.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the FAST1™ Intraosseous Infusion System. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, specifically highlighting a minor modification related to the removal mechanism of the infusion tube. It does not contain specific acceptance criteria, a detailed study description with performance metrics, or information related to AI or ground truth establishment in the context of medical device performance studies.

Therefore, many of the requested details cannot be extracted from the provided input. The document is primarily a regulatory submission for a device modification, not a standalone performance study report.

Here's a breakdown of what can be inferred and what is missing, based on the provided text:

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

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, which implies the modified device should perform at least as safely and effectively as the predicate.
• Reported Device Performance: Not quantified. The study conclusion states "The verification and validation conducted and conclusions demonstrate that the modified FAST1™ Intraosseous Infusion System is as safe and effective as the predicate device K970380." This is a qualitative statement of equivalence, not a report of specific performance metrics.

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: Not mentioned.
• Data Provenance: Not mentioned.
• Retrospective/Prospective: Not mentioned.

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 applicable and not provided. The study is a comparison of a modified mechanical device to a predicate device, not an assessment of diagnostic performance requiring expert interpretation or ground truth establishment in that typical sense.

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

• Not applicable and not provided.

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

• MRMC Study: No, an MRMC study was not done. The device is a direct-use medical device, not a diagnostic or AI-assisted tool involving human readers.
• AI Improvement Effect Size: Not applicable, as the device does not involve AI.

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

• Not applicable, as the device is not an algorithm.

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

• Not applicable in the typical sense. The "ground truth" for this device's performance would likely involve mechanical testing, simulated insertion/removal tests, and potentially human factors assessments to confirm the modified removal mechanism's efficacy and safety. These details are not provided.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable, as this device does not use machine learning or AI that would require a training set.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device