Search Results

The Vented Vial Transfer Pin is intended for the transfer and mixing of drugs contained in a vial.

The proposed device consists of five components: (1) Protective cap, (2) Piercing spike, (3) Filter medium, (4) Filter shell, (5) Luer connector cap. The piercing spike contains the dual lumen channel for liquid and air. A 0.2um hydrophobic air filter medium is assembled to the end of air channel. This enables keeping an equilibrium pressure between the drug vial and the ambient pressure, filtering the inserted/released air through filter medium. There is a female Luer lock connector in the end of liquid channel, it can be attached a device with a male Luer connector (e.g., standard syringe). The proposed device is available 2 specifications according to design, with security clip and without security clip. The Vented Vial Transfer Pin with Security Clip designed which can be fixed to a 13mm drug vial to prevent accidental separation. The proposed device is a sterile, single use device. It is sterilized by Ethylene Oxide Gas (EtO) to achieve a SAL of 106 and supplied sterility maintenance package which could maintain the sterility of the device during the shelf life of five years. No DEHP, BPA and Natural Rubber Latex are added in the proposed device.

This document is a 510(k) Summary for a medical device called the "Vented Vial Transfer Pin." It mostly focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than providing a detailed study proving performance against acceptance criteria for the new device as an AI or diagnostic tool.

However, it does list several non-clinical tests that were performed to verify that the proposed device met design specifications and was substantially equivalent to the predicate device. These tests, along with comments on the differences between the proposed and predicate devices, indirectly describe acceptance criteria and how the device met them.

Here's a breakdown of the information requested, based on the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria alongside reported performance in the general sense of a diagnostic or AI device. Instead, it lists standards with which non-clinical tests complied and states that the proposed device "met all design specifications" and "complies with the following standards." The comments section addresses differences between the proposed and predicate device and assures that these differences do not affect substantial equivalence on safety and effectiveness.

Here's an interpretation based on the provided text, focusing on the non-clinical tests:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

The document relates to a physical medical device (Vented Vial Transfer Pin), not an AI/diagnostic software. Therefore, there is no "test set" in the context of data for an algorithm. The non-clinical tests would have involved physical samples of the device. The document does not specify the number of units tested for each non-clinical test.

Data provenance is not applicable here as it refers to typical AI/diagnostic data (e.g., patient images, medical records).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

Not applicable. This device is a physical medical device, not an AI or diagnostic tool that requires ground truth established by medical experts for performance evaluation. The "ground truth" for this device's performance would be derived from the physical and chemical properties and test outcomes according to the cited standards.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/diagnostic software study involving human readers or adjudication of results.

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 is not an AI device.

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

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

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

For this physical device, the "ground truth" is established by:

• Compliance with international and national standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM, USP) for materials, sterility, packaging, and functional performance.
• Material properties and test results from laboratory analyses (e.g., cytotoxicity, hemolytic properties, tensile strength).
• Physical measurements and functional tests directly assessing the device's ability to perform its intended function (e.g., flow rate, filter bursting pressure).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/ML algorithm.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device