Search Results

The Fresenius Ultraflo HPX dialyzer is designed for single use acute and chronic hemodialysis.

Not Found

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for a medical device, the Fresenius Ultraflo HPX Single Use Hemodialyzer. This type of regulatory submission is specifically for demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared device, not for proving that a device meets particular acceptance criteria through clinical studies in the way a new drug or novel medical device would.

Therefore, the information you've requested regarding acceptance criteria, device performance from a clinical study, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, and MRMC studies, is not applicable or available within this document for the following reasons:

• No Clinical Testing: The document explicitly states: "No clinical testing was performed." The evaluation was based solely on in vitro testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices.
• Substantial Equivalence: The purpose of a 510(k) is to show that a new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed predicate device. This is primarily done through comparison of technological characteristics, materials, and in vitro performance, not by establishing specific clinical acceptance criteria met by a new study.
• Safety and Effectiveness Summary vs. Efficacy Study: The information provided is a "Summary of Safety and Effectiveness" which focuses on comparing the device to existing predicate devices and summarizing in vitro test results, not detailing a large-scale clinical efficacy study with acceptance criteria.

However, I can extract the in vitro performance reported and the general assessment of equivalence:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Given that no clinical acceptance criteria were established or assessed in a human study, the "acceptance criteria" here refer to the in vitro performance benchmarks derived from the predicate devices. The reported device performance indicates that the Ultraflo HPX met these benchmarks, demonstrating substantial equivalence.

Study Details (Not Applicable/Available for Clinical Efficacy)

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. No clinical test set. In vitro testing was performed, but the sample sizes for these bench tests are not specified in this summary.
2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. No clinical test set requiring expert ground truth.
3. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. No clinical test set requiring adjudication.
4. 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 a hemodialyzer, not a diagnostic imaging device typically evaluated with MRMC studies. No AI component is mentioned.
5. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable. No algorithm or AI component is mentioned.
6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): The "ground truth" for showing substantial equivalence was the in vitro performance of the predicate devices. The new device's in vitro performance was compared against these established benchmarks.
7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. No AI model or training set is mentioned for this device.
8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In conclusion, this document describes a 510(k) submission based on in vitro testing and comparison to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence, rather than a clinical study with detailed acceptance criteria and performance metrics as typically seen for novel devices requiring clinical efficacy data.

Ask a specific question about this device