Search Results

The FAS Endoluminal Brush is intended to collect and remove obstructing material from the internal lumen surface of an indwelling central venous catheter to restore or improve catheter flow rate, and to provide a biofilm or fibrin sample which is suitable for microbiological analysis.

The FAS Endoluminal Brush is a single use, sterile disposable medical device. The device itself consists of nylon bristles wound into a stainless steel flexible wire, which is further wound into a stainless steel tubular handle. The brush is enclosed in a plastic sterile sheath that is heat sealed at the proximal end is attached to a Luer lock at its distal end. The Luer lock attachment provides the brush access to catheter lumens in a sterile environment. The FAS Endoluminal Brush kit also contains accessory items including a patient drape, instructions for use, wire clippers, and specimen container and cap, and a patient identification label.

The provided text describes the 510(k) submission for the FAS Endoluminal Brush. However, it does not contain detailed information about specific acceptance criteria or a dedicated study demonstrating the device's performance against those criteria in a quantitative manner.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, highlighting the absence of the requested information:

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

• Biocompatibility
• Sterility Assurance
• General Device Safety | "Testing was performed according to international standards to assure biocompatibility, sterility assurance, and general device safety." |

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified. The document states "Testing was performed" but does not give any numbers for samples or cases.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. It mentions "tested internally and by a third party," but no geographical origin or whether the data was retrospective or prospective.

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)

• Number of Experts: Not mentioned.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not mentioned.

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

• Adjudication Method: Not mentioned.

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

• MRMC Study: No, this is not an AI/imaging device. The FAS Endoluminal Brush is a physical medical device. Therefore, an MRMC study is not applicable.
• Effect Size of AI Improvement: Not applicable.

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

• Standalone Study: Not applicable, as this is a physical medical device and not an algorithm.

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

• Type of Ground Truth: Not explicitly stated. The "design intent" and "device performance specifications" are mentioned, suggesting that performance was evaluated against these internal benchmarks, but the specific nature of the "ground truth" (e.g., specific measurements of flow rate improvement, microbiological culture results, etc.) is missing.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an algorithm that requires a training set in the machine learning sense.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable.

Summary of Device and Study Information from the Text:

The FAS Endoluminal Brush is a single-use, sterile disposable device composed of nylon bristles wound into a stainless steel wire and handle. It's used to:

1. Collect and remove obstructing material from indwelling central venous catheters to restore or improve flow rate.
2. Provide a biofilm or fibrin sample suitable for microbiological analysis.

The document indicates that "Testing was performed according to international standards to assure biocompatibility, sterility assurance, and general device safety." It concludes that "Test results support the conclusion that actual device performance satisfies the design intent" and "conforms to the device performance specifications."

Conclusion:

The provided 510(k) summary for the FAS Endoluminal Brush is very high-level regarding performance testing. It asserts that testing was done and met specifications, but it lacks the specific quantitative details regarding acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert involvement, and ground truth establishment that would typically be found in a detailed study report. This kind of summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicates rather than providing exhaustive performance data for novel devices, which would be typical for a 510(k) submission for a Class II device of this nature.

Ask a specific question about this device