Search Results

The Palindrome P Hemodialysis Catheter is intended for acute and chronic hemodialysis, apheresis, and infusion. It may be inserted either percutaneously or by cutdown. Catheters greater than 40 cm implant length are indicated for femoral insertion.

The Palindrome P Catheter Repair Kit is indicated to repair the hub/back end assembly (extension tubing, luer adapter(s) or clamp(s)) or to repair the hub snap connector component(s) of the Palindrome P Hemodialysis Catheter

The Palindrome Reverse Tunneled Catheter is intended for acute and chronic hemodialysis, apheresis, and infusion. It may be inserted either percutaneously or by cutdown. Catheters greater than 40 cm implant length are indicated for femoral insertion.

The Palindrome reverse-tunneled catheter repair kit is intended for the repair of the hub/back end assembly (extension tubing, luer adapter(s) or clamp(s)) or to repair the hub snap connector component(s). A repair can only be made if the tubing length between the hub snap connector and the exit sit is a minimum of 5.5 cm

The Palindrome P Hemodialysis Catheter has a radiopaque polyurethane shaft with two large inner lumens designed in a "double D" configuration. The Catheter will be supplied with a detached connector assembly allowing for the catheter tip to be positioned in the vein and tunneled retrograde to the exit site. The hub and back end of the catheter is then assembled with a snap lock connector with compression ring.

A Palindrome™ Reverse Tunneled catheter repair kit will be offered to replace damaged extensions and / or extension adaptors.

The provided text describes the 510(k) Premarket Notification for the PalindromeTM P Hemodialysis Catheter. It outlines the device, its intended use, and claims substantial equivalence to previously marketed devices. However, it does NOT contain the detailed information necessary to answer your specific questions regarding acceptance criteria and the comprehensive study that proves the device meets those criteria.

Here's a breakdown of why and what information is missing:

• Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance: While the document states "Testing was performed to compare the proposed Palindrome™ P Reverse Tunneled Catheter to predicate device. Results of verification / validation demonstrate that the modified device is substantially equivalent to the legally marketed predicate devices," it does not provide a table of specific acceptance criteria (e.g., flow rates, material biocompatibility thresholds, tensile strength limits) or the quantitative results from these tests. It only makes a general claim of substantial equivalence.

• Sample Size and Data Provenance for Test Set: This information is completely absent. The document mentions "testing was performed" but provides no details on the number of catheters tested, the source of any data (e.g., in-vitro, in-vivo, animal studies, human clinical data), or whether this data was retrospective or prospective.

• Number and Qualifications of Experts for Ground Truth: Since no specific clinical or image-based studies are detailed, there is no mention of experts, their qualifications, or their role in establishing ground truth. This type of information would typically be relevant for diagnostic devices that rely on expert interpretation.

• Adjudication Method: Similar to the above, without specific clinical or diagnostic study details, an adjudication method is not mentioned.

• Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study: This document pertains to a medical device (hemodialysis catheter) and not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool. Therefore, an MRMC study is not applicable or mentioned. There's no AI component in this device.

• Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance: As this is a physical medical device and not an algorithm, the concept of "standalone performance" for an algorithm is not applicable.

• Type of Ground Truth Used: The document implies that the "ground truth" for substantial equivalence would be the performance characteristics of the predicate devices. However, the specific metrics and how they were established for either the predicate or the new device are not detailed.

• Sample Size for Training Set: Since this is a physical device and not an AI model, there is no concept of a "training set" in the machine learning sense.

• How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established: Not applicable for the same reason as above.

In summary, the provided 510(k) summary focuses on establishing substantial equivalence through a general statement of "verification/validation" against predicate devices. It does not offer the granular detail concerning acceptance criteria, study methodologies, expert involvement, or data characteristics that your questions are looking for, particularly those questions relevant to AI/ML or diagnostic devices.

To answer your questions accurately, a much more detailed technical report or study protocol usually submitted to the FDA (beyond the public 510(k) summary) would be required. This summary is intended to provide an overview to justify commercialization based on equivalence, not to fully detail all underlying testing.

Ask a specific question about this device