Search Results

The Power-V PICC is indicated for patients that require repeated venous access for infusion or injection therapy. The Power-V PICC is indicated for peripheral access to the central venous system for intravenous therapy. The Power-V PICC is indicated for dwell times less than or greater than 30 days. The maximum recommended infusion rate is 5 ml/sec. The maximum pressure of power injectors used with the Power-V PICC catheter may not exceed 300 psi.

The Power-V PICC is a family of peripherally inserted central venous catheters designed to allow for contrast media studies. The catheters, made of radiopaque polyurethane tubing, are inserted pcriphcrally. Each Power-V PICC has a kink resistant, reverse tapered catheter design. The Power-V PICC is indicated for dwell times greater than 30 days. The Power-V PICC catheter assemblies have been tested to withstand power injection of worst-case viscosity injection media at 5 cc/sec with a maximum power injection pressure of 300 psi (scc Appendix B). The catheter is supplied sterile and non-pyrogenic in a variety of kit configurations (scc Appendix C).

The Power-V PICC is illustrated in the drawings at the end of this section. The Power-V PICC product line has catheters in 4 Fr and 5 Fr single lumen and 5 Fr and 6 Fr dual lumen. All catheters are 60 cm long. The catheters are attached to an injection-molded polyurethane hub that has extension legs with luer lock fittings for access attachment.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and supporting study for the Power-V PICC device.

It's important to note that the provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device seeking substantial equivalence, not a detailed scientific study report. As such, information regarding rigorous clinical trial design, statistical analysis, and detailed performance metrics as you might find for a novel drug or a high-risk device is largely absent. The focus of a 510(k) is to demonstrate equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided text does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in the form of numerical thresholds for a specific test. Instead, it refers to the device meeting "all functional requirements and specifications" and demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The key performance aspect mentioned is related to power injection capabilities.

The "Intended Use" section reiterates: "The maximum recommended infusion rate is 5 ml/sec. The maximum pressure of power injectors used with the Power-V PICC catheter may not exceed 300 psi." |
| Biocompatibility (conformance with standards). | "Biocompatibility testing on the device was in conformance with ISO 10993-1, and GLP TRIPARTIE." |
| Functional requirements and specifications. | "The Power-V met all functional requirements and specifications." (No specific details provided on these requirements.) |
| Substantial equivalence to predicate devices. | "The design, methods of manufacturing, and materials used in the Power-V device are substantially equivalent to the predicate devices." (Implies meeting similar performance as predicate devices, but no direct quantitative comparison is given). |

Study Details (Based on the provided 510(k) Summary)

The text describes engineering and biocompatibility testing rather than a clinical study in the traditional sense, especially a study involving human subjects or extensive retrospective data analysis for performance metrics beyond physical device capabilities.

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

   • The document refers to "Power-V PICC catheter assemblies" being tested for power injection. It does not specify the number of catheter assemblies used in this test.
   • Data provenance: The testing appears to be prospective laboratory/bench testing conducted by the manufacturer (HDC Corporation) or a contracted lab. There is no mention of country of origin for the data or whether it's retrospective.
   • For biocompatibility, it states "Biocompatibility testing on the device was in conformance with ISO 10993-1, and GLP TRIPARTIE." This would involve specific biological tests on materials, not human testing or data from patients.

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

   • This concept is not applicable to the type of testing described. The "ground truth" for power injection performance or biocompatibility is established by the physical and chemical properties of the device and its behavior under controlled laboratory conditions, as measured by instruments and analyzed against engineering specifications and relevant standards. There is no involvement of clinical experts for "ground truth" similar to image interpretation.

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

   • This is not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used in studies where human interpretation or classification is involved, often for clinical outcomes or image reading. The tests described are objective, physical/chemical tests.

4. 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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for diagnostic devices, particularly those involving AI or human interpretation, to assess reader performance. The Power-V PICC is an intravascular catheter with mechanical and biocompatibility performance as its primary focus.

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

   • No, this is not applicable. The Power-V PICC is a physical medical device, not an algorithm or AI system. Its performance is measured directly, not through an algorithm's output.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • For power injection: Engineering specifications and measurement data. The ability to withstand 5 cc/sec at 300 psi is measured directly using appropriate laboratory equipment.
   • For biocompatibility: Conformance to international standards (ISO 10993-1, GLP TRIPARTIE), which specify acceptable biological responses to materials. This involves a series of in-vitro and in-vivo tests to assess toxicity, irritation, sensitization, etc.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This device is not an AI or machine learning model, so there is no concept of a "training set."

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

   • Not applicable for the reason above.

Summary of the "Study" Proving Acceptance:

The "study" in this context refers to bench testing and biocompatibility testing performed by or for HDC Corporation to demonstrate that the Power-V PICC meets its functional specifications and adheres to relevant safety standards. The core claim is not one of clinical superiority or a complex diagnostic performance, but rather that the device is substantially equivalent to existing, legally marketed predicate devices in terms of its design, materials, manufacturing, and basic functional capabilities, particularly its power injection functionality and biocompatibility. The regulatory pathway of a 510(k) relies heavily on this concept of substantial equivalence, meaning rigorous, comparative clinical trials are usually not required if equivalence can be demonstrated through non-clinical means.

Ask a specific question about this device

The V-Cath® PICC is indicated for the patient that requires repeated access for infusion or injection therapy. It can also be used for blood sampling although a 3.8FR or larger catheter is recommended.

Not Found

This is a medical device clearance letter for the V-Cath® PICC (Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter) from 1998. The document primarily serves to confirm that the device is substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

Crucially, this document is a regulatory clearance letter and not a study report or clinical trial summary. Therefore, it does not contain the detailed information requested regarding acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert evaluations. It simply indicates that the device has been cleared for marketing based on a determination of substantial equivalence.

Here's why the requested information cannot be extracted from the provided text:

• Acceptance Criteria & Reported Performance: Regulatory clearance letters typically don't detail the performance metrics or acceptance criteria used in specific verification or validation studies. They generally conclude that the device meets safety and effectiveness requirements based on comparison to a predicate device.
• Sample Size & Data Provenance: There's no mention of specific studies, sample sizes, or data provenance.
• Experts & Adjudication: There's no information about experts, ground truth establishment, or adjudication methods.
• MRMC Study: No mention of a multi-reader multi-case comparative effectiveness study.
• Standalone Performance: No details on standalone algorithm performance, as this device is a physical catheter, not an AI or software algorithm.
• Type of Ground Truth: Not applicable in this context.
• Training Set Sample Size & Ground Truth: Not applicable for a physical medical device.

In summary, the provided document does not contain the information necessary to complete the requested table and study details. It is a regulatory notification of clearance, not a technical report detailing performance criteria and study outcomes.

Ask a specific question about this device

The V-Cath® PICC is indicated for the patient that requires repeated access for infusion or injection therapy. It can also be used for blood sampling although a 3.8FR or larger catheter is recommended.

Not Found

I am sorry, but based on the provided text, there is no information available about acceptance criteria, device performance metrics, or any studies conducted to prove the device meets specific criteria.

The text is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for the V-Cath® PICC. This letter confirms that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device and can be marketed. It discusses regulatory matters, product classification, and general controls, but it does not contain any data, results, or details of studies regarding the device's performance against specific acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot populate the table or answer the specific questions you've posed as the necessary information is not present in the provided document. The document only states the "Indications for Use" of the device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device