Search Results

The QuickDraw venous cannula is indicated for use in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. The QuickDraw venous cannula serves to drain non-oxygenated blood from the venae cavae and/or right atrium during cardiopulmonary bypass.

The Edwards Lifesciences QuickDraw venous cannula kit includes a wirewound cannula, introducer(s), guidewire, connector hub, and percutaneous insertion components. The cannula and introducer(s) have tapered tips to aid in insertion and advancement into the femoral vein. The cannula is marked at 5 cm intervals from the first marker band to indicate the depth of insertion. The soft, clear tubing near the barbed end of the cannula allows visualization of air and blood and provides a non-reinforced clamp site. The cannula connector is a 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) barbed connector. The introducers accept a 0.038 in. (0.97 mm) guidewire for assistance in cannula insertion. The connector hub secures and immobilizes the introducer within the cannula for easier, one-person insertion of the cannula/introducer assembly. For percutaneous insertion, percutaneous insertion components are provided.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "QuickDraw Venous Cannula." It states that the subject device is identical to a previously cleared predicate device, with only the addition of a contraindication and a warning to the Instructions for Use.

Because the device itself is identical and the changes are only to the labeling (adding contraindications and warnings), the description explicitly states:

"Functional and safety testing were not applicable for this changed device as the change is only adding a contraindication and warning to the Instructions for Use."

Therefore, there is no performance study described in this document to demonstrate that the device meets acceptance criteria. The 510(k) submission relies on the substantial equivalence to the predicate device, which would have undergone performance testing for its initial clearance.

As such, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria based solely on the provided text, as no such study was conducted or described for this particular 510(k) submission.

To directly answer your prompt based on the provided text, and acknowledging the lack of a performance study for this specific submission:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

• Acceptance Criteria: Not applicable for this submission as no new performance testing was conducted. The criteria would have been established and met for the predicate device.
• Reported Device Performance: Not applicable for this submission as no new performance testing was conducted. The performance essentially mirrors that of the identical predicate device.

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

• Not applicable; no new test set was used for performance evaluation in this 510(k).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

• Not applicable; no new test set requiring ground truth establishment was used for performance evaluation in this 510(k).

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

• Not applicable; no new test set requiring adjudication was used for performance evaluation in this 510(k).

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:

• Not applicable; this is a physical medical device (cannula), not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

• Not applicable; this is a physical medical device (cannula), not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):

• Not applicable; no new performance study was conducted requiring ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable; this is a physical medical device (cannula), not an algorithm that requires a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Heartport QuickDraw venous cannula is indicated for use in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. The Heartport QuickDraw venous cannula serves to drain nonoxygenated blood from the venae cavae and/or right atrium during cardiopulmonary bvpass.

Not Found

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called the Heartport QuickDraw venous cannula. It describes the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, but it does not contain the detailed information necessary to answer most of the requested questions about acceptance criteria and a specific study proving the device meets them.

Here's a breakdown of what can be gleaned and what is missing based only on the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

Missing Information: The document states that performance testing demonstrated the device meets "established specifications" and that its materials have "proven biocompatibility," but it does not detail what those specific criteria or specifications are, nor does it provide quantitative performance data against them.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

Missing Information: The document refers to "performance testing" but does not provide any details about the sample size used for the test set, the country of origin, or whether the study was retrospective or prospective.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

Missing Information: This information is not present in the provided text. The device is a physical medical device (venous cannula), not an AI/diagnostic tool that would typically require expert-established ground truth for its performance evaluation in the way implied by this question.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

Missing Information: This information is not present. As above, this type of adjudication is usually relevant for diagnostic assessments, not for the physical performance of a cannula.

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

Missing Information: This is completely inapplicable to the device described. The Heartport QuickDraw venous cannula is a physical device used in cardiopulmonary bypass, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool that would be evaluated with an MRMC study or AI assistance.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

Missing Information: This question is not applicable to the device described. It is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

Missing Information: Not explicitly stated as the device's performance is likely measured against engineering specifications and relevant ISO standards for medical devices, rather than a diagnostic "ground truth."

8. The sample size for the training set

Missing Information: This is not applicable to the device described, which is a physical medical device and not an AI model requiring a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

Missing Information: Not applicable to the device described.

Summary of Study Information Provided in the Text:

The document states:

• "Performance testing demonstrated that the subject device meets established specifications."
• "The materials used in the Heartport QuickDraw venous cannula have proven biocompatibility."
• The overall conclusion is based on "intended use, product performance and biocompatibility information" and establishes "substantial equivalence to currently marketed predicate devices."

However, the 510(k) summary itself (the provided text) does not detail the specifics of this performance testing or biocompatibility assessment, nor does it include information about clinical studies with human subjects or detailed expert evaluations that would be typical for many AI-based or diagnostic devices. The acceptance criteria it refers to are internal "established specifications" and "proven biocompatibility," the details of which are not disclosed in this public summary. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing devices rather than a de novo detailed clinical efficacy study with specific expert-adjudicated ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device