Search Results

The NxStage System One is indicated for the treatment of acute and chronic renal failure, or fluid overload using hemofiltration, hemodialysis, and/or ultrafiltration, in an acute or chronic care facility. The NxStage System One is also indicated for hemodialysis with or without ultrafiltration in the home. All treatments must be administered under physician's prescription, and must be observed by a trained and qualified person, considered to be competent in the use of this device by the prescribing physician.

The NxStage System One is comprised of the NxStage Cycler, an electromechanical control unit; the NxStage Cartridge, a sterile, single-use extracorporeal blood and fluid management circuit (with or without a preattached high permeability filter) that mounts integrally within the NxStage Cvcler. The combined system is designed to deliver hemofiltration, hemodialysis and/or ultrafiltration in an acute or chronic care facility. The NxStage System One is also indicated for hemodialysis with or without ultrafiltration in the home.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the NxStage System One, a hemodialysis system. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a novel clinical study with new acceptance criteria and performance data.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document primarily compares technological characteristics to a predicate device (K122051). While it mentions "predetermined acceptance criteria was met" for performance, it does not explicitly list the acceptance criteria or specific performance values for the new device against those criteria in a table format. Instead, it largely states that the proposed device has "Same" characteristics as the predicate or lists the predicate's specifications as a de facto benchmark.

Therefore, a table that perfectly fits the request cannot be generated from the given information because the specific acceptance criteria values for the current submission's device are not enumerated, nor are detailed "reported device performance" values presented for novel criteria. The comparison is mainly a feature-by-feature match to the predicate.

However, based on the provided "Technological Characteristics Comparison Table," we can infer the "acceptance criteria" were essentially "to match or be equivalent to the predicate device's specifications."

Note: The Blood Leak Detector sensitivity for the proposed device cites 0.35 ml/min leak rate compared to the predicate's 0.45 ml/min. This appears to be a slight improvement in sensitivity, meaning it can detect smaller leaks, which would meet or exceed the predicate's performance.

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

The document mentions "Performance, verification and validation testing was conducted" and that "Results of this testing have documented that the proposed NxStage System One is substantially equivalent." However, it does not provide any specific sample sizes for test sets or details about data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). The study appears to be entirely bench testing.

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

This information is not provided in the document. Given that the submission is focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence through bench testing, it is unlikely that "experts" were used in the way one might for clinical ground truth establishment (e.g., radiologists interpreting images).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

This information is not provided. Again, this is a bench testing submission, so adjudication methods typical for clinical studies would not apply.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was mentioned or conducted. The submission is not about human reader performance with or without AI assistance but rather about the technical specifications and safety of a medical device (hemodialysis system).

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study:

Since this is a physical medical device (hemodialysis system) with software components, not an AI algorithm for interpretation, the concept of a "standalone" or "algorithm-only" performance study in an AI context does not apply in the traditional sense. The device's performance relies on the integrated electromechanical control unit and cartridge. The software functionality itself was presumably validated as part of the overall device's performance testing (e.g., software version 4.9 compared to 4.8).

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

The "ground truth" for this submission appears to be engineering specifications and performance standards for the hemodialysis system components and overall function, as established and validated during the design and testing phases. This is evidenced by the detailed comparison of parameters like flow rates, pressure monitor ranges, and detector sensitivities.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

This information is not provided. This device is not an AI/ML algorithm that is "trained" on a dataset in the conventional sense. Its functionality is based on pre-programmed parameters and electromechanical design, not machine learning model training.

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

As this is not an AI/ML device that undergoes "training," this question is not applicable. The "ground truth" for its design and operation would be based on established medical and engineering principles, regulatory requirements, and the performance of the predicate device.

Ask a specific question about this device