Search Results

The intended use of the Infusor LV and Infusor SV Devices includes the slow, continuous intravenous, intra-arterial, subcutaneous or epidural administration of medications. It may also include the slow, continuous infusion of medications directly into an intraoperative site or subcutaneously for postoperative pain management.
The modified Infusion Pumps can be utilized for slow, continuous delivery though clinically acceptable routes of administration such as intravenous (IV), intra-arterial (IA), and subcutaneous or epidural infusion of medications. In addition, the intended use of the devices includes continuous infusion of medications directly into an intraoperative site or subcutaneously for post operative pain management.

A modified design is being added to Baxter's Infusor line of Elastomeric Infusion Devices.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called "Infusor LV and Infusor SV". It does not describe a study involving AI or algorithmic performance, but rather a modification to an existing elastomeric infusion device.

Therefore, many of the requested categories are not applicable to the provided text. However, I can extract the relevant information presented in the document:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not provide a detailed table of acceptance criteria with specific numerical targets. It states:

Explanation: The document indicates that the modification to the Infusor line required "standard flow rate testing" to confirm its performance characteristics. For ongoing manufacturing, both flow rates and pressure are 100% tested, implying these are critical performance criteria. However, explicit quantitative acceptance limits or detailed results of these tests are not provided in this summary.

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 the test set: Not specified. The document only mentions "Standard flow rate testing" was performed.
• Data provenance: Not specified.

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 an infusion pump, and its performance is assessed through objective engineering tests (flow rate, pressure) rather than expert interpretation of data or images.

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

Not applicable. Performance is based on objective measurements, not expert adjudication.

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 document describes a physical medical device (infusion pump), not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool.

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

Not applicable. This is not an algorithm.

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

The ground truth for this device's performance would be the direct, objective measurement of flow rates and pressure using calibrated instruments, compared against pre-defined engineering specifications. It's not based on subjective assessment or biological outcomes in the context of this 510(k) summary for device modification.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This document describes a physical medical device, not a machine learning model.

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

Not applicable. This document describes a physical medical device, not a machine learning model.

Ask a specific question about this device