Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K140642
    Device Name
    PCD 737A
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2014-06-10

    (90 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    870.5800
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    PCD 737A is intended for use by medical professionals, and patients who are under medical supervision, in treating many conditions such as:

    • Primary lymphedema
    • Secondary lymphedema
    • Venous insufficiency
    • Venous stasis ulcers
    • Dysfunction of the muscle pump
    • Post mastectomy edema
    • Edema following trauma and sports issues
    • Post immobilization edema
    • Reducing wound healing time
    • Prevention of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients who may be susceptible
    • Reduction of pain and swelling after injury and surgery
    • Enhancement of venous circulation
    • Prevention of venous stasis
    • Assistance in healing of cutaneous ulcers
    • Reduction of compartmental pressures
      The device is intended for hospital, home, and clinic use.
    Device Description

    Not Found

    AI/ML Overview

    I am sorry, but after reviewing the provided document, I was unable to find the acceptance criteria for a medical device and a study proving the device meets those criteria. The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the PCD 737A device, which is a compressible limb sleeve. It mainly details the regulatory approval process, lists the indications for use, and includes standard FDA disclaimers and contact information.

    There is no information regarding:

    • A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
    • Sample size used for a test set, data provenance, or details of a study.
    • Number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth.
    • Adjudication methods.
    • Results of a multi-reader multi-case comparative effectiveness study or any effect sizes.
    • Results of a standalone algorithm performance study.
    • Type of ground truth used.
    • Sample size for a training set or how its ground truth was established.

    This document confirms the device's substantial equivalence to a predicate device, which is a regulatory assessment, not a detailed technical performance study with acceptance criteria.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1