Search Results

VPS Catheters are indicated for short or long-term central access to the central venous system for intravenous therapy, central venous pressure monitoring and contrast studies. For blood or hyperalimentation delivery, use a 4F or larger catheter. The maximum recommended injection rate is 2cc/sec for the 3F catheter and 5cc/sec for the 4F and 5F catheters. Each VPS Catheter is indicated for use by itself or with the VPS System (Stylet and Console).

The VPS Catheter is designed for use with or without the VPS Console. When sold together, the VPS Catheter is preloaded with the Stylet and supplied in a tray. The VPS Catheter is sterile, single use, non-pyrogenic and non-toxic.

VPS Catheters are single lumen (3F and 4F) or dual lumen (5F) open-ended central venous access catheters fabricated from a soft, radiopaque, biocompatible polyurethane material with a working length of 50 or 55 cm and catheter markings at 1 cm intervals and 5 cm increments. VPS Catheters are packaged sterile with the VPS Stylet in a tray with accessories necessary for a percutaneous micro-introducer placement (Modified Seldinger or Seldinger technique). The VPS Catheters feature a reverse-taper design.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The document states that "Previously provided in vivo and in vivo testing demonstrated that the subject device meets all acceptance criteria." However, the specific quantitative acceptance criteria for each test are not detailed in the provided text.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The document does not explicitly state the sample size used for the test set or the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). It generally refers to "in vivo and in vitro testing."

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications

This information is not provided in the document. The performance data section refers to "in vivo and in vitro testing" results, but there is no mention of expert-established ground truth for these tests.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided in the document.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study is mentioned in the provided text. The performance data focuses on device and material characteristics.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

This question is not applicable as the device is a physical catheter, not an algorithm. Therefore, no standalone algorithm performance was assessed.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for the performance tests described (e.g., static pressure, flow rate, tensile strength) would be the objective measurements obtained during the actual physical and mechanical testing of the catheter. This is not explicitly detailed but implied by the nature of the tests. There is no mention of expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data as a form of ground truth for these specific performance criteria.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This question is not applicable as the device is a physical catheter and not an AI/ML algorithm that would require a training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

This question is not applicable as the device is a physical catheter and not an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device