Search Results

The Infusion Sets for Single Use with Needles is intended to administer fluids from a container to a patient's vascular system through a needle or catheter inserted into the vein.

The Infusion Sets for Single Use with Needles is intended to administer fluids from a container to a patient's vascular system through a needle or catheter inserted into the vein. It consists of basic configuration and optional components. The basic configuration consists of protective cap of spike, spike, drip chamber, flow regulator, flexible tube, conical fitting, and injection needle/intravenous needle. Air vent, fluid filter, clamp, and injection site are optional components. The device is provided sterile and single use.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Infusion Sets for Single Use with Needles) and does not describe a study involving an AI/Machine Learning device that utilizes a test set, expert readers, or ground truth in the way a diagnostic AI would.

Instead, this document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device by comparing technical characteristics and performance standards. The "acceptance criteria" and "study" described here refer to non-clinical performance testing to ensure the device meets specified engineering and safety standards, rather than evaluating diagnostic accuracy of an AI model.

Therefore, many of the requested categories for AI/ML device studies (such as sample size for test set, number of experts for ground truth, MRMC studies, effect size of AI assistance, standalone performance, and training set details) are not applicable to this 510(k) submission.

Here's an interpretation of the document's content in a way that aligns with your request as much as possible, focusing on the quality and performance testing described:

Device: Infusion Sets for Single Use with Needles (K221069)

Type of Study: Non-Clinical Performance Testing and Biocompatibility Testing for Substantial Equivalence Determination. This is not an AI/ML diagnostic performance study.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For medical devices like infusion sets, acceptance criteria are typically defined by recognized international and national standards. The "performance" is demonstrated by showing compliance with these standards.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size: The document does not specify exact sample sizes for each non-clinical test (e.g., number of infusion sets tested for flow rate, sterility, etc.). It generally states that "Non clinical tests were conducted to verify that the proposed device met all design specifications." Regulatory standards often dictate minimum sample sizes for such tests, but these are not enumerated in the summary.
• Data Provenance: The testing was conducted by Sichuan Prius Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (China). The data represents laboratory testing results performed on the manufactured devices. The studies are by nature prospective, as they are specifically conducted to support the 510(k) submission for the new device.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

• This concept is not applicable. For non-clinical performance and biocompatibility testing, "ground truth" is established by adherence to validated international standards and test methods (e.g., ISO, ASTM, USP). The expertise lies in the qualifications of the testing laboratories and personnel conducting these specific, standardized tests (e.g., chemists, material scientists, engineers, microbiologists). The document does not specify how many or the qualifications of the testing personnel, as it's assumed to be part of standard quality system requirements for medical device manufacturing and testing.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• This concept is not applicable. Performance testing results are either compliant with the specified standard and acceptance criteria or they are not. There is no "adjudication" in the sense of reconciling differing expert opinions or interpretations, as would be the case in subjective diagnostic AI assessments.

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, nor is it a diagnostic imaging device that involves human reader interpretation. No MRMC study was performed.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an algorithm or AI device. The device itself (infusion set) functions independently of human interpretation concerning its core performance metrics (e.g., flow rate, sterility, tensile strength).

7. The type of ground truth used

• Ground Truth: For this type of device, "ground truth" is defined by established international and national standards, regulatory requirements, and validated test methods. Compliance with these standards (e.g., ISO for biological evaluation, physical properties; ASTM for material properties, package integrity; USP for sterility, pyrogens) indicates that the device performs as intended and is safe. The document repeatedly states, "Comply with ISO X," "meets the requirements of ISO Y," or "test result can meet the requirements."

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. There is no concept of a "training set" for this type of medical device which undergoes compliance testing rather than AI model training.

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

• Not applicable, as there is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Infusion Sets for Single Use is intended to administer fluids from a container to a patient's vascular system through a needle or catheter inserted into the vein.

The proposed device consists of basic configuration and optional components. The basic configuration consists of protective cap of spike, drip chamber, drip tube, flow regulator, flexible tube, and conical fitting. Air vent, fluid filter, clamp, and injection site are optional components. The device is provided sterile, single use.

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for a medical device (Infusion Sets for Single Use) and not a study describing the acceptance criteria and performance of an AI/ML powered device. Therefore, the requested information regarding AI/ML device performance, acceptance criteria, test set, ground truth, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and training set details cannot be extracted from this document.

The document discusses the substantial equivalence of the proposed device to a predicate device, focusing on material, physical characteristics, and compliance with various ISO and ASTM standards relevant to infusion sets (e.g., sterilization, biocompatibility, seal strength, flow rates). It explicitly states:

• No clinical study is included in this submission. This means there is no data on human-in-the-loop performance, standalone algorithm performance, or the benefits of AI assistance.
• The device being reviewed is a physical medical device (Infusion Sets for Single Use), not an AI/ML algorithm or system.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request using the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The device is intended to administer fluids from a container to a patient's vascular system through a needle or catheter inserted into the vein. The maximum use time of the infusion sets shall not exceed 24 hours. The intravenous infusion needle should be used for only single dose administration and not to be left in place for more than 2 hours.

The proposed devices are indicated for the delivery of fluids from a container to a patient's vascular system through an infusion needle under the action of gravity. The proposed devices have 8 different configurations with 4 different filter sizes, and they are provided sterile and single use. The proposed devices include 32 models.

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for "Infusion Sets for Single Use." This is a medical device application that demonstrates "Substantial Equivalence" to a predicate device. This type of submission relies on non-clinical testing to support its claims, rather than clinical studies with human participants. Therefore, several of the requested categories are not applicable (N/A) to this document.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a tabulated format with specific numerical targets. Instead, it refers to conformity with established international and US standards for medical devices. The "reported device performance" is implicitly that the device conforms to these standards, making it "substantially equivalent" to the predicate device and safe for its intended use.

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: The document does not specify the exact sample sizes used for each individual non-clinical performance and biocompatibility test. It simply states that "Non-clinical tests were conducted to verify that the proposed device met all design specifications." For in-vitro tests, typical sample sizes are relatively small and determined by the specific ISO/ASTM standard.
• Data Provenance: The testing was conducted as part of the submission by Jiangsu Suyun Medical Materials Co., Ltd. from China. The types of tests (Performance Testing, Biocompatibility Testing, Sterility, Shipping and Shelf-life) are generally performed prospectively in a lab setting rather than being retrospective analyses of existing data. The specific country of origin for the data acquisition (i.e., where the labs are located) is not explicitly stated beyond the sponsor's location.

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 is N/A. For non-clinical device testing, "ground truth" is established by adhering to widely accepted international and national standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM, USP). The "experts" are the qualified laboratory personnel performing the standardized tests, and their qualifications are in conducting these specific test methods, not in clinical interpretation.

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

This is N/A. Adjudication methods are typically relevant for clinical studies or studies involving subjective human assessment (like image interpretation). Non-clinical performance and biocompatibility tests are objective measurements against predefined criteria in standards, not subject to individual interpretation requiring adjudication.

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

This is N/A. This submission is for a physical medical device (infusion sets), not an AI/software device that involves human readers or image interpretation. No MRMC study was performed.

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

This is N/A. This submission is for a physical medical device, not an algorithm or AI device.

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

The "ground truth" for this device's performance and safety is based on established international and national standards and test methods. For example, the ISO 8536 series for infusion equipment, ISO 10993 series for biocompatibility, and various USP and ASTM standards define the accepted methods and criteria for assessing device attributes like flow rate, mechanical integrity, material safety, and sterility.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is N/A. This is a 510(k) submission for a physical medical device, not a machine learning or AI model that requires a training set.

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

This is N/A. As mentioned above, there is no training set for a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Infusion Sets with Precision Filter for Single Use is indicated for the delivery of fluids from a container to a patient's vascular system for short term infusions only.

The Precision Infusion Filter for Single Use is intended to be used with administration sets for removal of particulate matter during the administration of fluids or medications.

The Extended Infusion Sets for Single Use is intended to be used in I.V. therapy when an extended fluid path is requirement for administration.

The purpose of this submission was to introduce new products into interstate commerce. This is a bundled submission which includes Infusion Sets with Precision Filter for Single Use, Precision Infusion Filter for Single Use and Extended Infusion Sets for Single Use.

Infusion Sets with Precision Filter for Single Use is indicated for the delivery of fluids from a container to a patient's vascular system under the action of gravity. The proposed devices are comprised of protective cap, closure-piercing device, air vent, drip chamber, precision filter, flexible tubing, injection site, flow regulator, clamp, conical fitting, burette and needle tube. The devices are provided sterile and single use.

Precision Infusion Filter for Single Use is intended to be used with administration sets or extension sets for removal of particulate matter during the administration of fluids or medications. The proposed devices are comprised of protective Cap and precision filter. The devices are provided sterile and single use.

Extended Infusion Sets for Single Use is intended to be used in I.V. therapy when an extended fluid path is requirement for administration. The proposed devices are comprised of protective Cap, flexible tubing, conical fitting and precision filter. The devices are provided sterile and single use.

This document describes various infusion sets and filters, but it does not describe a study involving an AI device. The document is for a 510(k) premarket notification for medical devices (infusion sets and filters), focusing on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, not on AI performance. Therefore, I cannot provide an answer based on the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

Infusion sets are intended for the delivery of fluids, solutions, drugs, agents, nutritionals, electrolytes, blood and blood products via parenteral, enteral, intravenous, intra-arterial, subcutaneous, epidural or irrigation routes of administration. These sets are intended for use primarily in the hospital setting and can be used in other acute and non-acute care areas, such as, but not limited to Home Care, Nursing Homes, Mobile Intensive Care, Ambulatory Infusion Centers, Hospice, Subacute facilities, Outpatient / Surgical Centers, Long Term Care, Urgent Care, Transport and in Physician offices.

Hospira infusion sets are intended for use as gravity sets or with dedicated Hospira Infusion Pumps. Hospira infusion sets are disposable devices for single patient use, which incorporate various set configurations and components. These components including the back check valve which is the subject of this submission may be shared across Hospira set families and used with sets designed for gravity or other pump platforms.

The acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets these criteria are detailed below, based on the provided document.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The Hospira Infusion Sets with an alternate fixed diaphragm Back Check Valve were evaluated against various performance characteristics, primarily focusing on biocompatibility and sterility. The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the successful "Pass" result for each test.

Study Details

1. Sample Size used for the test set and the data provenance:
   The document does not specify the exact sample sizes used for each individual test (e.g., number of devices tested for cytotoxicity, sensitization, etc.). It only states that the "Hospira Infusion sets with an alternate Back Check Valve passed all specified test requirements."
   The data provenance is not explicitly stated as country of origin, nor is it explicitly mentioned whether the data is retrospective or prospective. However, given this is a 510(k) submission for a modified device, the testing would typically be prospective for the modified component.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
   This information is not provided in the document. The tests performed are laboratory-based performance and safety tests, not clinical evaluations requiring expert consensus on a 'ground truth' in the context of diagnostic algorithms.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:
   Not applicable, as the tests are laboratory-based performance and safety tests with objective pass/fail criteria according to international standards.

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 submission is for a physical medical device (infusion set) and not an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD) that involves human readers or AI assistance.

5. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
   Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device.

6. The type of ground truth used:
   The ground truth for the device's performance is established by the specified international standards (ISO series) for biocompatibility and sterility. For the back check valve performance, it's assessed against "reduction of backflow" and "user needs and design inputs for an Infusion set." These are objective, measurable criteria defined by regulatory and engineering standards.

7. The sample size for the training set:
   Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device and not an AI/machine learning algorithm that requires a training set.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   Not applicable, for the same reason as above.

Ask a specific question about this device