Search Results

The Vortex® CT Port Access System is indicated for any patient requiring repeated access of the vascular system or other selected body site, for the delivery of medications, nutritional supplementation, fluids, blood, blood products, and the sampling of blood.

When used with non Y site LifeGuard Safety infusion sets in 20 Ga or 19Ga sizes, the Vortex® CT Port Access System is indicated for power injection of contrast media. For power injection of contrast media, the maximum recommended infusion rate is 5 ml/sec.

The LifeGuard® Safety Infusion Set is indicated for use in the administration of fluids and drugs, as well as blood sampling through surgically implanted vascular ports.

When used with the Vortex® CT Port Access System, the LifeGuard® Safety Infusion Set is also indicated for power injection of contrast media into the central venous system. For power injection of contrast media, only models LG-19-75, LG-19-100, LG-20-75, LG-20-100, and LG-20-150 may be used at a maximum infusion rate of Sml/sec.

The Vortex® CT Port is a Titanium port with a self sealing silicone rubber septum designed to maintain integrity after punctures with a non-coring needle. The port has a hollow area, or reservoir, under the septum through which fluid passes during infusion or aspiration. The Vortex design features a proprietary reservoir with rounded walls giving it a toroidal shape. The outlet stem is located tangential to the reservoir wall allows fluid to pass between the reservoir and the catheter. The Vortex® Port Access systems offer models with single lumen 7.5 French to 9.6 French catheters made from either polyurethane or silicone. The catheters all contain radiopacifiers, and depth markings.

The LifeGuard safety infusion set is a port access needle set with an integrated proprietary safety feature to prevent re-bound injury. The safety infusion set includes a huber needle, a winged housing, non-DEHP PVC extension legs, and a luer standard connector.

This document describes the non-clinical performance data for the Vortex® CT Port Access System and LifeGuard® Safety Infusion Set, which is a medical device for vascular access and power injection of contrast media.

Here's the information requested:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not provide specific "reported device performance" values for each test, but rather indicates that the tests were performed to establish substantial equivalence, safety, and effectiveness. The "Required Results" column from the provided table serves as the acceptance criteria.

The study concludes that "The non-clinical tests demonstrate that the device is as safe, as effective for the modified intended use." This statement implies that the device met all the required results set as acceptance criteria for the non-clinical tests.

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

• Test Set Sample Sizes:
  • Sterilization exposure: All
  • Physiological exposure: All
  • Power injection Performance Test: 18
  • Simulated Power Injection: 30
  • Dynamic Failure Test: 18
  • Static Burst Test: 18
  • Life Cycle Power Injection Test: 10
  • Cyclic testing: 30, 10 cycles per port
  • Port Patency Verification: 5
  • Port Occlusion Test: 10
  • Puncture Life: 2
• Data Provenance: The data is from non-clinical testing. There is no mention of country of origin for the data (as it's laboratory-based testing, not human patient data) and it is inherently prospective as it involves conducting specific tests on the devices.

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

Not applicable. This is a submission for a physical medical device (Vortex® CT Port Access System and LifeGuard® Safety Infusion Set) and the testing performed is non-clinical/pre-clinical (laboratory-based physical and performance testing), not involving human interpretative tasks or diagnostic assessment. Therefore, no experts were used to establish ground truth in the context of diagnostic accuracy, and no qualifications of such experts are relevant.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable, for the same reasons as point 3. The tests are objective physical and performance measurements with defined pass/fail criteria, not subjective assessments 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

Not applicable. This device is a physical medical port and infusion set, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool. Therefore, MRMC studies and AI assistance are not relevant to its evaluation.

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

Not applicable. This device is a physical medical product, not an algorithm.

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

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests is based on pre-defined engineering specifications and performance requirements. These are objective, measurable outcomes (e.g., "no bursts, leaks, / plastic deformations allowed," "meet expected flow rate and pressure withstand requirements," "withstand 10 cycles").

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. Since this is a physical medical device and not an AI/machine learning model, there is no "training set."

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

Not applicable, for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The LifeGuard™ Safety Infusion Set is used to access implanted vascular ports to administer fluids and/or to withdraw blood. The LifeGuard™ Safety Infusion Set facilitates safe removal of the needle by encapsulating the needle during vascular port de-accessing to help prevent needlestick injuries.

The LifeGuard™ Infusion Set is a standard 90° non-coring needle intravascular administration set with a sharps injury protection. The LifeGuard™ Infusion Set is designed for use with vascular access devices. The needle is inserted into the vascular access port in a standard manner for fluid infusion or for blood sampling. The components that comprise the LifeGuard™ Safety Infusion Set includes the following: a PVC tubing set; a white clamp to prevent fluid flow; a universal female luer lock connector to connect to infusion/aspiration devices; a white cap to close the female luer; a winged needle holder to secure the infusion set to the patient with a pre-attached 90° non-coring needle to access the implanted port and allow the user to pull the needle up into the safety position; a needle trap encapsulates the needle after de-accessing the needle from the implanted port; and a needle guard shrouds the needle before use. Some models include a Ysite as an alternate female luer injection site with an additional white cap and white clamp to prevent fluid flow. A thermoformed tray with a heat sealed tyvek lid provides a sterile barrier. The LifeGuard™ Safety Infusion Set is fabricated from biocompatible, medical grade materials. The LifeGuard™ Safety Infusion Sets are supplied as sterile, non-latex, nonpyrogenic, intended for single use only and are manufactured out of non-DEHP PVC. De-accessing the needle is done as with any standard non-coring needle, using a one-handed (dominant hand) technique to remove the needle while stabilizing the port with the nondominate hand. As the needle is removed, the passive sharps injury protection feature is actuated by sliding the needle holder upward, · which encapsulates the needle within the needle trap.

The provided text describes a medical device, the LifeGuard™ Safety Infusion Set, and details its performance through a "Simulated Use Study". This study focuses on the effectiveness of the sharps injury protection feature.

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

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details:

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

   • Sample Size: n=500 for the Simulated Use Study.
   • Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin. It is a "Simulated Use Study," implying controlled conditions rather than retrospective or prospective patient data from real-world usage.

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

   • The document does not provide details on the number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth for this specific "Simulated Use Study." The study focuses on a measurable mechanical failure rate of the safety feature.

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

   • The document does not describe an adjudication method for the test set. Given the nature of a "failure rate" for a mechanical safety feature, an adjudication process involving human interpretation is unlikely in the same way it would be for diagnostic imaging.

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:

   • No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed. This device is a mechanical infusion set with a safety feature, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers.

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

   • This question is not applicable. The device is a physical medical device, not an algorithm. The "Simulated Use Study" evaluates the physical device's performance, which inherently includes human interaction (users pulling the needle up) to actuate the safety feature but measures the device's mechanical success.

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

   • The ground truth for the Simulated Use Study appears to be based on the direct observation and quantification of the mechanical failure of the sharps injury protection feature. There is no indication of expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data being used to establish this specific ground truth. It's a binary outcome: the safety feature either successfully encapsulates the needle or it fails.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • The document does not mention a "training set." The study described is a "Simulated Use Study" to test the performance of the final device, not to train a machine learning model.

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

   • Not applicable, as no training set is mentioned in the context of this device's evaluation.

Ask a specific question about this device