Search Results

For the retention of microorganisms and removal of air and particulate matter from infusion fluids.

The Solution Administration Sets with a 0.2 micron filter product line consists of sterile, non-pyrogenic, single use disposable devices used for the administration of fluids from a container to a patient's vascular system through a needle or catheter inserted into a vein. They are indicated for the retention of microorganisms and removal of air and particulate matter from infusion fluids. The filter consists of a 0.2 micron polyethersulfone (PES) solution membrane and 0.1 micron polyvinylidene fluoride air vent membrane enclosed in a copolyester housing.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (Solution Administration Sets with 0.2 Micron Filter) and, as such, focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device for regulatory clearance rather than a comprehensive study evaluating device performance against established acceptance criteria in a research context.

This document does not contain the kind of detailed information about a study that would rigorously prove a device meets acceptance criteria in the typical scientific sense (e.g., sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, MRMC studies). It is a regulatory submission, so the "studies" are verification tests to ensure the modified device is equivalent to the predicate.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria mentioned and the reported "performance" based on the provided text, while noting the limitations in the depth of information available.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

Note: The document only states that "All tests met the acceptance criteria" without providing the specific numerical or qualitative thresholds for those criteria. It implies that these criteria were pre-established internally by Baxter Healthcare Corporation for their risk analysis and design verification.

Here's why the other requested information is largely not present in this type of regulatory document:

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

• Not explicitly stated. The document is a summary and does not include the detailed protocols, sample sizes, or statistical analysis reports from the bench tests or biocompatibility assessments.
• Data Provenance: The tests were conducted by Baxter Healthcare Corporation. The document doesn't specify the country of origin for the data beyond that. These are typically internal corporate studies (retrospective in the sense that they are conducted on manufactured samples, but prospective in terms of the test design).

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

• Not applicable/Not mentioned. This information is typically relevant for studies involving human interpretation (e.g., image analysis, clinical evaluations). For bench tests and biocompatibility tests of a physical device, the "ground truth" is typically defined by scientific principles, international standards (e.g., ISO-10993), and validated test methodologies. There's no "expert ground truth" in the sense of consensus from adjudicators.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable/Not mentioned. As above, adjudication is not a standard part of these types of engineering and biological safety tests. The results are typically quantitative measurements against defined specifications.

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:

• No. This is a completely different type of study, relevant for AI/radiology devices. This document is a 510(k) for an administration set with a filter, not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

• Not applicable. This question pertains to AI algorithms. The device discussed is a physical medical device.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For Performance Data (e.g., flow rate, bacterial retention): The "ground truth" would be established by the validated test methods themselves, based on physical and microbiological principles, often referenced to international standards or established industry practices for filter performance.
• For Biocompatibility: The "ground truth" is defined by the requirements of international standards like ISO-10993-1 and FDA guidance, which specify the types of biological responses that are considered acceptable or unacceptable.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This question refers to machine learning models. This device does not involve a "training set" in that context.

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

• Not applicable. As above, no training set for an AI model is involved.

Summary of the Study that Proves the Device Meets Acceptance Criteria:

The document describes a series of nonclinical bench tests and biocompatibility assessments conducted by Baxter Healthcare Corporation.

• Objective: To evaluate the effect of a material modification (change in solution membrane material from one hydrophilic polyethersulfone to another hydrophilic polyethersulfone) in the 0.2 micron filter within their Solution Administration Sets. The goal was to establish substantial equivalence to the previously cleared predicate device (K964850).
• Tests Performed:
  • Performance Data: Air diffusion, bubble point, gravity flow rate, flow rate post sterile water conditioning, flow rate post parenteral nutrition conditioning, and bacterial retention.
  • Biocompatibility: Cytotoxicity, Systemic Toxicity, Intracutaneous, Hemolysis, Pyrogen, Sensitization, and USP Physicochemical. These were conducted in accordance with ISO-10993 and FDA guidance.
• Results: The document states that "All tests met the acceptance criteria."
• Conclusion: Based on these tests, Baxter concluded that "The non-clinical data demonstrate that the subject device is substantially equivalent and performs comparably to the predicate devices that are currently marketed for the same intended use."

This is a regulatory study designed to show equivalence, not an independent research study to establish novel performance claims.

Ask a specific question about this device