Search Results

HydroPICC Single Lumen: Indicated for short-or long-term peripheral access to the central venous system for intravenous therapy, including but not limited to the administration of fluids, medications, and nutrients; the sampling of blood; central venous pressure monitoring; and power injection of contrast media. Rated for maximum power injection flow rate of 5.0 ml/s

HydroPICC Dual Lumen: Indicated for short- or long-term peripheral access to the central venous system for intravenous therapy, including but not limited to the administration of fluids, medications, and nutrients; the sampling of blood; central venous pressure monitoring; and power injection of contrast media. Rated for a maximum power injection flow rate of 5.0 ml/s

HydroMID Single Lumen: Indicated for short term access(

The HydroMID catheters are a family of midline catheters comprised of a radiopaque, hydrophilic catheter with a suture wing, Luer lock hub, and extension tubing made from materials commonly used in the manufacture of catheters. Catheters are provided packaged in kit configurations with the appropriate accessories for placement in the respective clinical environments. The maximum power injection flow rate for the lumen is indicated on the extension tube clamp. HydroMID has been shown to be effective in reducing thrombus accumulation and thrombotic occlusions. Reduction of thrombus accumulation and thrombotic occlusions were evaluated using an in vitro model. Pre-clinical in vitro evaluations do not necessarily predict clinical performance with respect to thrombus formation.

The HydroPICC catheters are a family of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) comprised of a radiopaque hydrophilic catheter material with a suture wing, Luer lock hub, and extension tubing made from materials commonly used in the manufacture of catheters. Catheters are provided packaged in kit configurations with the appropriate accessories for placement in the respective clinical environments. The maximum power injection flow rate for the lumen is indicated on the extension tube clamp. HydroPICC has been shown to be effective in reducing thrombus accumulation and thrombotic occlusions. Reduction of thrombus accumulation and thrombotic occlusions were evaluated using an in vitro model. Pre-clinical in vitro evaluations do not necessarily predict clinical performance with respect to thrombus formation.

The purpose of this 510(k) is to add an additional statement to the indications for use.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter (K243458) details the HydroPICC and HydroMID catheters. The focus of this submission is to add a statement to the indications for use regarding the anti-thrombogenic properties of the MIMIX® Technology incorporated into these catheters. The acceptance criteria and supporting studies are described below:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The core acceptance criterion for this 510(k) submission is to demonstrate that the expanded Indications for Use statement, specifically concerning the anti-thrombogenic properties of the MIMIX® Technology, does not introduce new questions of safety or effectiveness and is supported by non-clinical data. The reported device performance is based on in vitro studies.

Note: The FDA letter explicitly states: "The clinical impact has not been evaluated in human clinical trials. This device is not intended for the treatment of existing vein thrombosis." This indicates that the acceptance criteria are based solely on in vitro performance for the anti-thrombogenic claims, not on in vivo clinical outcomes.

Study Details for Acceptance Criteria

The provided document does not fully delineate separate "test sets" for the in vitro studies in the way one might for an AI/algorithm-based device. Instead, the "studies" themselves are the performance evaluations for the stated acceptance criteria.

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • The document lists several in vitro tests.
   • Sample Size: The specific number of devices or experimental replicates used in each in vitro test is not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Data Provenance: All studies are indicated as "in vitro" (meaning conducted in a test tube, culture dish, or other controlled environment outside of a living organism). The country of origin is not specified but is presumably where Access Vascular Inc. conducts its research and development or contracts with testing facilities.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • For in vitro studies of this nature (evaluating properties like thrombus accumulation), the "ground truth" is typically established by the experimental setup, validated measurement techniques, and potentially statistical analysis.
   • No specific number of experts or their qualifications are mentioned as having established "ground truth" for these in vitro tests in the context of expert consensus, as might be the case for image-based diagnostic devices. The results are based on objective physical or biological measurements.

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

   • Not applicable. Adjudication methods like "2+1" or "3+1" are typically used in clinical studies or studies involving subjective expert review (e.g., radiology image interpretation) to resolve discrepancies in independent assessments. As these are in vitro physical/biological tests, such adjudication methods are not relevant or mentioned.

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 device is a medical catheter, not an AI software/algorithm requiring human reader interpretation. No MRMC study was conducted or is relevant for this device.

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

   • Not applicable. This device is a physical medical device (catheter) with a material technology, not an AI algorithm. Therefore, "standalone" algorithm performance is not a relevant concept for this submission.

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

   • The ground truth for the in vitro studies described (e.g., "Assessment of PICC Catheter Thrombosis," "Thrombosis Accumulation Report") is based on objective measurements of physical and biological phenomena (e.g., quantification of thrombus accumulation, pressure required to remove occlusions) within controlled laboratory environments. This is a form of empirical scientific measurement, rather than expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. There is no mention of a "training set" because this is a physical medical device, not an AI/machine learning model that requires training data.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable. As no training set is mentioned, the method for establishing ground truth for it is also not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device