Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K131050
    Date Cleared
    2013-12-27

    (256 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    876.5860
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The dialyzer is indicated for the treatment of acute and chronic renal failure or fluid overload using hemofiltration, hemodialysis, and/or ultrafiltration. There are no known contraindications.

    Device Description

    The proposed device is a single use high flux (permeability) hollow-fiber dialyzer.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification Submission for the NxStage® 1.6m² Dialyzer. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving performance against specific clinical acceptance criteria through a study involving human subjects or AI algorithms.

    Therefore, many of the requested categories in your prompt are not applicable to this type of submission. This document details non-clinical bench testing to demonstrate that the device functions comparably to existing, legally marketed devices.

    Here's an attempt to answer your questions based only on the provided text, indicating where information is not present:


    1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

    The document states: "Performance, verification and validation testing was conducted to characterize performance of the proposed device, consistent with FDA's Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifications for Conventional and High Permeability Hemodialyzers, dated August 7, 1998, and the predetermined acceptance criteria was met."

    However, the specific acceptance criteria for each test parameter (e.g., clearance rates, ultrafiltration coefficients) and the detailed results demonstrating that these criteria were met are not explicitly listed in the provided text. The submission focuses on a comparative table of technological characteristics, asserting substantial equivalence.

    ParameterAcceptance Criteria (Not Explicitly Stated in Document)Reported Device Performance (Implied as meeting criteria)
    Performance Testing (General)Consistent with FDA Guidance, Predetermined Acceptance Criteria MetMet
    Verification & Validation TestConsistent with FDA Guidance, Predetermined Acceptance Criteria MetMet

    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: Not explicitly stated. The document mentions "Performance, verification and validation testing" but does not detail the number of devices tested.
    • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, given it's a bench test. The manufacturer address is in Lawrence, MA, USA, and the sterilization site is Ontario, CA, USA. The manufacturer is NxStage GmbH & Co. KG in Germany.

    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)

    Not applicable. This submission is for a medical device (dialyzer) and involves non-clinical bench testing, not an AI algorithm or clinical study requiring expert ground truth for interpretation of images or patient outcomes.

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

    Not applicable. As above, no expert adjudication for ground truth 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

    Not applicable. This is a medical device (dialyzer) submission, not an AI diagnostic or assistive device. No human reader studies are described.

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

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

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

    Not applicable. For this type of device, "ground truth" refers to established engineering specifications and performance standards (e.g., clearance rates for various solutes) as outlined in FDA guidance for dialyzers. The document states that testing was "consistent with FDA's Guidance for the Content of Premarket Notifications for Conventional and High Permeability Hemodialyzers." The "ground truth" would be the expected physical and chemical performance characteristics of a high-permeability hemodialyzer.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    Not applicable. This submission is for a medical device (dialyzer), not an AI algorithm that requires training data.

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

    Not applicable. As above, no training set or AI algorithm is described.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1