Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K980658
    Date Cleared
    1998-05-19

    (89 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    876.5820
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    Hemodialysis with these dialyzers is indicated for patients with acute or chronic renal failure when conservative therapy is judged to be inadequate. It may also be indicated in the treatment of patients intoxicated with poisons or drugs.

    Device Description

    Model PSN-130 Hemodialyzer
    Model PSN-150 Hemodialyzer

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Polysynthane (PSN™) Hemodialyzer, which is a medical device for use in patients with acute or chronic renal failure, or those intoxicated with poisons or drugs. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than presenting a study proving performance against pre-defined acceptance criteria in the way one would for a novel device or a clinical trial.

    Therefore, the requested information elements related to clinical study design, sample sizes, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, or standalone performance studies are addressed as "Not Applicable" or "Not Provided" based on the content. The acceptance criteria in this context are primarily related to safety and manufacturing quality rather than specific performance metrics demonstrated through a clinical study.

    Here's a breakdown based on the provided text:

    Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    Given that this is a 510(k) submission focused on substantial equivalence, the "acceptance criteria" are implied by compliance with established standards and comparison to predicate devices, particularly regarding safety and manufacturing quality. The reported device performance relates to these compliance activities.

    Acceptance Criteria (Implied)Reported Device Performance
    BiocompatibilityComponents met biological requirements of ISO 10993-1.
    Sterilization AssuranceValidation of sterilization cycle based on AAMI Guideline (ST-27) to ensure a sterility assurance level (SAL) of 1x10⁻⁶. Sterilant residues (EO, ECH, EG) consistent with proposed limits published in Federal Register (June 23, 1978).
    PyrogenicityPyrogen testing meets USP Chapter 161 requirements for Transfusion and Infusion Assemblies and Similar Medical Devices.
    Particulate MatterParticles counted per USP XXIII .
    Manufacturing IntegrityFunctional testing for blood side integrity and conformance to manufacturing specifications performed as in-process and/or final inspections.
    Functional EquivalenceGeneral function and materials are the same as Baxter predicate Dialyzers. Slight change in clearance values for urea, creatinine, Vitamin B12, and ultrafiltration, similar to CA® Hollow Fiber Dialyzers. (This is a comparison point, not a strict "acceptance criterion" in itself without specific thresholds provided, but it's central to the 510(k) argument).

    Study Details

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

      • Sample Size: Not applicable/Not provided. The submission does not describe a "test set" in the context of clinical performance evaluation. The data presented is related to materials testing, sterilization validation, and manufacturing controls.
      • Data Provenance: Not applicable/Not provided in terms of geographic origin or prospective/retrospective for a specific test set. The data arises from internal testing and compliance activities.
    2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable/Not provided. Ground truth establishment by experts for a test set is not relevant to this type of submission.

    3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable/None. No adjudication method is described as there is no clinical test set requiring such expert consensus.

    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: Not applicable. This device is a hemodialyzer, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

    5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This device is a hemodialyzer; it does not involve algorithms or human-in-the-loop performance in the context of AI.

    6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable/Not provided in the clinical sense. The "ground truth" here is compliance with established biological, sterility, pyrogenicity, and particulate standards, as well as manufacturing specifications, rather than clinical outcomes or diagnostic accuracy.

    7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable/Not provided. This submission does not involve a "training set" as it is not an AI/ML device.

    8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable/Not provided. Not relevant to this device type.


    Summary of Device and 510(k) Approach:

    The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a hemodialyzer. The primary method for demonstrating its acceptability is by proving "substantial equivalence" to legally marketed predicate devices (CA® Hollow Fiber Dialyzers, PSN™ Polysynthane Dialyzers). This means the device functions similarly and uses similar materials to previously cleared devices, and it meets established safety and manufacturing standards.

    The "studies" mentioned are not clinical trials evaluating efficacy or diagnostic performance, but rather:

    • Biological safety testing: Compliance with ISO 10993-1.
    • Sterilization validation: Compliance with AAMI Guideline (ST-27) and residue limits.
    • Quality control testing: Pyrogen testing (USP), particulate counting (USP), and functional testing (in-process/final inspections).
    • Performance comparison: Clearance values for urea, creatinine, Vitamin B12, and ultrafiltration are compared to predicate devices, showing "slight change" but overall similarity.

    There were "no clinical data" provided as explicitly stated in the document, which is common for 510(k) submissions where substantial equivalence can be demonstrated through non-clinical means.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1