Search Results

The Renaflo® II HF 2000 Hemofilter is intended for use in patients with fluid overload, uremia and/or electrolyte disturbances associated with oligoanuria acute renal failure. It may also be used when removal of excess fluid is indicated, such as patients in pulmonary edema or congestive heart failure refractory to diuretic therapy.

The Minntech Renaflo® II HF 2000 Hemofilter is made of glycerin-free, microporous, hollow fiber, polysulfone membrane encased in a polycarbonate housing having molded ultrafiltration ports and polycarbonate blood port header caps.

While the document provides a 510(k) summary for the Renaflo II HF 2000 Hemofilter, it does not contain the detailed information required to answer your specific questions about acceptance criteria and how a study proved the device meets them.

The document states that "The following performance testing was conducted to determine device effectiveness as a hemofilter: Ultrafiltration Rate vs. Transmembrane Pressure, Pressure Drop vs. Blood Flow Rate, Protein Rejection, Minimum Blood Flow Rate & Blood Path Integrity." However, it does not provide the acceptance criteria for these tests, nor does it present the actual test results or details about the study design.

Therefore, I cannot provide the information requested in your numbered points.

To answer your questions, I would need a document that includes:

1. Specific numerical acceptance criteria for each performance metric (e.g., "Ultrafiltration Rate must be X ml/hr/mmHg ± Y%").
2. Reported performance values from the testing conducted.
3. Details about the test set: actual values from the tests conducted, and a description of the test conditions and methods.
4. Information about training data (if applicable to a machine learning context, which this device is not): This device is a physical medical filter, not an AI/ML diagnostic tool, so concepts like "test set," "training set," "ground truth experts," or "adjudication methods" as typically applied to AI studies are not relevant here.

The provided document is a regulatory submission demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, which usually involves comparing specifications and performance (often indirectly by demonstrating similar design and materials, and then showing new device meets established performance characteristics, which are usually not fully disclosed in summaries like this). It is not a detailed clinical or performance study report.

Ask a specific question about this device