Search Results

The Empty Fluid Container is used to hold an admixture of compatible fluids for intravenous administration to a patient. Medication transfer in and out of the container is done using aseptic technique.

The eZSURE™ Empty Fluid Container (EFC) devices are empty single-use, sterile, nonpyrogenic flexible IV container devices/ bags. These are discarded after use. The Subject EFC is made of non-PVC materials. The Nexcel Film for IV bag of the Subject EFC device is composed of a flexible plastic film bag and the device is provided in a two-port configuration with closures. A closed system inlet-/ entry-/ additive- port is used for filling one or more compatible fluid(s) into the bag by a transfer set/ syringe without needle with the ProSeal™ Injector or ProSeal™ Injector Plus (cleared K240171) attached, and another port, the spiking/ administration port, is used for accessing the infusate in the bag with a standard bag spike in an IV therapy administration from the EFC. The transfer device with a male Luer lock attached with the ProSeal™ Injector (or ProSeal™ Injector Plus) is used to connect to the filling-/ additive- port for filling. The additive port incorporates a ProSeal™ Injection Site (cleared K240433) as its integrated subcomponent; hence no other injection needle/ cannula is needed. The transfer device is removed at the end of the preparation step, and the self-sealing additive-/ injection-/ filling- port secures the admixture contents until their administration.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the eZSURE™ Empty Fluid Container with ProSeal™ Injection Site. It details the device's modification from a predicate device, its indications for use, and a comparison of technological characteristics. The document primarily focuses on verifying the safety and effectiveness of the modified device by leveraging testing performed on existing cleared devices and conducting additional benchtop performance verifications.

However, the provided text does not contain information about a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in the context of diagnostic accuracy, which is what the requested questions (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) are geared towards. These questions are typically relevant for AI/ML-based diagnostic devices where performance is measured against a ground truth and involves human experts. This device, being an "Empty Fluid Container with ProSeal™ Injection Site," is a physical medical device for fluid administration, not a diagnostic or AI-driven system.

Therefore, many of the requested fields cannot be answered from the provided input as they are not applicable to this type of device.

Here's what can be extracted and inferred based on the nature of the device:

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

The acceptance criteria are primarily based on conformance to recognized international and FDA standards, and successful performance in benchtop verification tests. The "reported device performance" is that it conforms to these standards and passed the tests.

For the remaining questions, they are not applicable or the information is not provided in the text for this medical device:

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. The document describes benchtop performance verifications, which typically involve a specified number of units tested according to the method, rather than "test sets" of patient data. Details on the exact number of units tested for each benchmark are not explicitly stated.

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 does not involve expert interpretation or ground truth establishment in the diagnostic sense. Performance is assessed against engineering and biological standards.

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

• Not applicable. This relates to diagnostic interpretation, not physical device performance.

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 for AI-assisted diagnostic devices.

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

• Not applicable. This is for AI-driven algorithms.

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

• The "ground truth" for this medical device is adherence to established international and FDA recognized standards for medical devices (e.g., ISO, ASTM, USP standards for material safety, sterility, physical integrity, leakage, etc.). For biocompatibility, the ground truth is the biological response meeting safety thresholds according to ISO 10993.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is for AI/ML models; this device is a physical product.

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

• Not applicable. This is for AI/ML models.

Ask a specific question about this device