Search Results

The PowerPort™ Implantable Port is indicated for patient therapies requiring repeated access to the vascular system. The port system can be used for infusion of medications including anti-cancer medicines (chemotherapy), I. V. Iluids, parenteral nutrition solutions, blood products, and for the withdrawal of blood samples.

When used with the PowerLoc™ Safety Infusion Set, the PowerPort™ Implantable Port is indicated for power injection of contrast media. For power injection of contrast media, the maximum recommended infusion rate is 5 ml/s.

The PowerPort™ Implantable Port is an implantable access device designed to provide repeated access to the vascular system. Port access is performed by percutaneous needle insertion using a non-coring needle. Power injection is performed using a PowerLoc™ Safety Infusion Set only. The PowerPort™ Implantable Port consists of two primary components: an injection port with a self-sealing silicone septum and a radiopaque catheter. Single lumen PowerPort™ Implantable Ports can be identified subcutaneously by feeling the top of the septum, which may include three palpation bumps arranged in a triangle, and by palpating the sides of the port, which is also triangular. Dual lumen PowerPort™ Implantable Ports can be identified subcutaneously by feeling the top of each septum; each septum may feature three palpation bumps arranged in a triangle.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the PowerPort™ ClearVUE™ Slim Implantable Ports and PowerPort™ ClearVUE™ Slim Implantable Ports. The submission aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are generally established by internal product performance specifications and meeting acceptable risk levels, as demonstrated through verification testing. The document states that "Design verification testing was conducted to evaluate device performance over the proposed 2-year shelf life of the to-be-marketed configurations for all models of the subject device." It also mentions that "Verification testing demonstrated that the device performed as intended by meeting product performance specifications and controlling risks to an acceptable level..."

Specific quantitative acceptance criteria and their corresponding reported device performance are not explicitly detailed in a comparative table format within the provided text. Instead, the document lists various verification/validation methods and standards applied, implying that the device was tested against these methods and passed their respective criteria.

However, based on the narrative and the types of tests listed, a conceptual table can be constructed, acknowledging that specific numerical values for criteria and performance are not given:

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The document does not explicitly state the numerical sample size used for each specific test in the verification activities. It generally refers to "the to-be-marketed configurations for all models of the subject device."

Regarding data provenance:

• The tests were conducted by Bard Access Systems, Inc. ("BAS Internal Test-Method").
• The data appears to be prospective as it involves "design verification testing... over the proposed 2-year shelf life," implying new testing for this submission.
• The country of origin for the data is implicitly the United States, as the submission is to the U.S. FDA.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

This information is not provided in the document. The tests performed are engineering and performance-based, not clinical studies requiring expert ground truth for interpretation (e.g., radiology reads). The "ground truth" here is determined by direct measurement against engineering specifications and industry standards. The document does mention "Material experts at BAS have confirmed the proposed locking solutions will not impact BAS catheters," indicating internal expertise in materials science informed certain aspects of the design verification.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable/not provided as the verification tests described are objective, quantitative engineering tests, not subjective assessments requiring adjudication by multiple readers or experts.

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

This information is not applicable. The device (PowerPort™ ClearVUE™ Slim Implantable Ports) is a physical medical device, specifically an implantable port and catheter system. It is not an AI-enabled diagnostic or therapeutic device. Therefore, an MRMC study related to AI assistance would not be relevant to this submission.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

This information is not applicable. As stated above, this device is a physical medical product, not an algorithm or software-only device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The ground truth for the verification studies is established by engineering specifications, industry standards (e.g., ISO 10555-3, NF S 94-370, ASTM D412), and FDA guidance documents ("FDA Implanted Infusion Port Guidance"). It is based on objective, measurable performance characteristics rather than clinical "ground truth" derived from patient data or expert interpretation.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. The device is a physical medical device and does not involve machine learning algorithms that require a "training set."

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

This information is not applicable for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device