Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K991430
    Date Cleared
    1999-05-28

    (32 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    862.2050
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    SMARTPREP CENTRIFUGE SYSTEM

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The Harvest SmartPReP™ CENTRIFUGE SYSTEM is designed to be used in the clinical laboratory or intraoperatively at point-of-care for the safe and rapid preparation of platelet poor plasma and platelet concentrate from a small sample of blood. The plasma and concentrated platelets produced can be used for diagnostic tests.

    Device Description

    SmartPReP Centrifuge System: Includes a table-top, self-decanting, swinging bucket centrifuge and processing disposable designed to allow for rapid automatic separation of plasma and platelets. The centrifuge spins at a maximum speed of 6000 rpms at a maximum force of approximately 3550g.

    AI/ML Overview

    Here is an analysis of the provided text regarding the Harvest Technologies SmartPReP Centrifuge System:

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

    Based on the provided text, the submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than defining specific acceptance criteria for performance metrics (e.g., specific platelet concentration levels or plasma purity). The "Substantial Equivalence" section states: "The proposed device is substantially equivalent to other table-top centrifuges previously cleared by the FDA via the 510(k) Notification process."

    The table below summarizes the comparison of features between the SmartPReP and the predicate centrifuge, effectively acting as the "acceptance criteria" here, where "reported device performance" means demonstrating that the SmartPReP possesses these characteristics as intended.

    FeatureAcceptance Criteria (Predicate Device Characteristic)Reported Device Performance (SmartPReP Characteristic)
    Principle of OperationSeparation based on density of liquidsSeparation based on density of liquids
    Table-TopYesYes
    RefrigeratedNoNo
    Swinging BucketYesYes
    Automatic DecantingNoYes
    Micro-processor ControlledYesYes
    User ProgrammableYesNo, program set by manufacturer
    Speed ControlSelectablePreset
    Acceleration and BrakingCurrent-controlledCurrent-controlled
    Maximum RPM4000 RPM6000 RPM
    Maximum RCF3077 g3550 g
    Tube CapacityVariety of sizes and volumes up to 250mLTwo Processing Disposables (50 mL/disposable)
    Lid Locking, Lid HoldingYesYes
    Imbalance DetectorYesYes
    ConstructionAnti-torsion construction, metal housing and rotorAnti-torsion construction, metal housing and rotor

    Notes on Acceptance Criteria:

    • The primary "acceptance criterion" for a 510(k) is demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device. This is achieved by showing similar intended use, technological characteristics, and safety and effectiveness.
    • For quantitative features like 'Maximum RPM' and 'Maximum RCF', the SmartPReP exceeds the predicate, which is generally acceptable as long as it doesn't raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.
    • For differences like 'Automatic Decanting', 'User Programmable', and 'Speed Control', the submission implicitly argues that these differences do not alter the fundamental mechanism of action or intended use in a way that would require new clinical data or raise significant safety concerns.

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

    The provided 510(k) summary does not contain information about a test set with a specific sample size, data provenance, or a study to prove performance against specific clinical or analytical targets. The submission is a comparison of technological characteristics to a predicate device, not a performance study with a test set of samples.

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

    Not applicable. As noted above, there is no mention of a test set or ground truth established by experts in this submission.

    4. Adjudication method for the test set

    Not applicable. There is no mention of a test set or adjudication.

    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 device is a centrifuge for preparing blood components, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device that would involve human readers or MRMC studies.

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

    Not applicable. This device is a physical centrifuge, not an algorithm.

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

    Not applicable. This submission is based on a comparison of engineering and design characteristics to a predicate device, not on clinical performance data requiring a ground truth.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    Not applicable. This device is a centrifuge, not a machine learning algorithm that requires a training set.

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

    Not applicable.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1