Search Results

PORT-A-CATH® II Venous Systems Preconnected with Polyurethane Catheter are indicated when a patient requires repeated venous access for injection or infusion therapy and/or venous blood sampling.

PORT-A-CATH® II Venous Systems Preconnected with Polyurethane Catheter are similar in design and function to the current commercially available PORT-A-CATH® II Venous Systems with Polyurethane Catheter.

These systems differ from current commercially available systems in that the portal/catheter connection is made during the manufacturing process, by placing a polyurethane strain relief over the catheter and outlet tubes of the portal.

These systems consist of a standard or low profile portal (titanium/polysulfone) preconnected to a radiopaque catheter (polyurethane) and an access needle. Two catheter options will be available: a 2.6 mm O.D. catheter and a 1.9 mm O.D. catheter. Additionally, systems will be made available with introducer sets.

The provided text does not contain information related to acceptance criteria, device performance, or any clinical studies involving AI or human readers.

The document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (PORT-A-CATH® II Implantable Venous Access Systems Preconnected with Polyurethane Catheter) dating back to 1996. It details the device's design, intended use, and compares it to similar devices already on the market.

Here's why the requested information cannot be extracted from this document:

• Acceptance Criteria & Device Performance: The document states that "In-vitro mechanical testing was conducted" and "results of the testing indicated that PORT-A-CATH II Venous Systems Preconnected with Polyurethane Catheter function according to specification." However, it does not provide any specific quantitative acceptance criteria or reported performance metrics (e.g., durability in cycles, flow rates, etc.). It merely states that the device met unspecified specifications.
• Sample Size, Data Provenance, Experts, Adjudication, MRMC, Standalone Performance, Ground Truth (for AI/clinical studies), Training Set Size/Ground Truth: These questions are all relevant to studies involving AI systems, diagnostic algorithms, or complex clinical trials with human interpretation. This 1996 document describes a physical medical device (an implantable port and catheter) and its pre-market clearance process. As such:
  • There is no mention of a "test set" or "training set" in the context of data for an AI system.
  • There are no "experts" establishing ground truth for image or data interpretation.
  • No "adjudication method" for interpreting results from an AI system is mentioned.
  • There is no "multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study" because there is no AI component to compare with human readers.
  • No "standalone" performance for an algorithm is described.
  • The "ground truth" for the device's performance would be engineering specifications and biocompatibility standards, not clinical outcomes in the way an AI diagnostic tool would have.

Summary of available information:

• Study Type: In-vitro mechanical testing and biocompatibility testing.
• Purpose of Study: To demonstrate that the preconnected system functions according to specification and that the materials are biocompatible, establishing substantial equivalence to existing devices.
• Clinical Studies: "Clinical studies were not deemed necessary" due to similarity in materials, design, and function to current commercially available systems.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested table or answer the specific questions related to AI studies or detailed clinical trial methodology based on the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device