Search Results

The Powered PD-IO provides intraosseous access in the distal tibia of pediatric patients as an alternative to IV access in emergent, urgent, or medically necessary cases for up to 24 hours.

The Humeral Head EZ-IO provides vascular access when standard venous access is not possible. Humeral head IO access is indicated in pediatrics in emergent, urgent, or medically necessary cases when intravenous access is difficult or impossible to obtain for up to 24 hours.

The Powered PD-IO Intraosseous Infusion System provides intraosseous access in the proximal tibia as an alternative to IV access in emergent, urgent, or medically necessary cases for up to 24 hours. The device is for use in pediatric patients (approximate weight range: 3kg-39kg).

This submission seeks to extend the indications for use for the Powered PD-IO Intraosseous Infusion System (K051992); EZ-IO Humeral Head (K052408) and Powered PD-IO (K063142) for emergent, urgent and medically necessary intraosseous vascular access for the delivery of drugs and fluids to pediatric patients. Vidacare manufactures all of these products. The expansion of indications for these products requires no new technology to facilitate the safe application of the product. There have been no changes to the design or components of the devices cleared under 510(k) K051992, K052408, K063142 and therefore the comparison of technological characteristics listed below are identical.

I am sorry, but the provided text is a 510(k) summary and FDA clearance letter for a medical device (Powered PD-IO Intraosseous Infusion System). This type of document describes the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices.

It does not contain information about acceptance criteria, specific device performance metrics, study designs (sample sizes, data provenance, ground truth establishment, adjudication methods), multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) studies, or standalone algorithm performance studies.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them based on the provided text. This document is focused on regulatory clearance based on equivalence, not on detailed performance studies of the kind you are asking about.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Manual PD-IO, and Powered PD-IO provide intraosseous access in the distal tibia of pediatric patients as an alternative to IV access during emergencies.

The Manual PD-IO consists of a proprietary pentagon shaft permanently attached to an ergonomically designed handle. The manual driver is designed to allow the user to manually insert a needle set consisting of a stylet and catheter through the cortex of the bone to a desired depth within the bone marrow to facilitate the infusion of desired fluids. After insertion of the needle set into the bone, the manual driver is detached from the needle set, leaving the stylet and catheter firmly seated in the bone. The stylet is then separated and removed from the catheter by turning the stylet hub counter clockwise leaving a standard Luer lock catheter securely seated in the bone. The catheter Luer lock permits attachment of standard syringes and IV tubing for administration of drugs and fluids (not supplied).

The Powered PD-IO consists of a reusable battery powered driver connected to a single use disposable intraosseous (IO) needle assembly. Upon activation, the drill supplies power to the needle set in order to penetrate through the cortex of the bone to a desired depth within the bone marrow. After insertion of the needle set, the power driver is detached from the needle set, leaving the stylet and catheter firmly seated in the bone. The stylet is then separated and removed from the catheter by turning the stylet hub counter clockwise leaving a standard Luer lock catheter securely seated in the bone. The catheter Luer lock permits attachment of standard syringes and IV tubing for administration of drugs and fluids (not supplied).

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the Manual PD-IO and Powered PD-IO intraosseous infusion systems. It seeks to extend the indication for use to include the distal tibia in pediatric patients. The submission argues for substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices (K043490 and K051992 for the same devices in proximal tibia, and K913258 for Cook, Inc.'s Disposable Intraosseous Infusion Needles which include distal tibia access).

Based on the provided text, there is no detailed study proving device performance against specific acceptance criteria in the sense of a clinical trial with quantitative results, sample sizes, expert ground truth, or adjudication methods for this specific extended indication. The submission relies on the concept of substantial equivalence to predicate devices.

Here's an analysis of the requested information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This information is not explicitly provided in the document. The submission is based on the premise that since there are "no changes to the design or components" of the Manual PD-IO and Powered PD-IO systems previously cleared for proximal tibia use, and similar devices (Cook, Inc. needles) already have the indication for distal tibia, their devices are "substantially equivalent." Therefore, the acceptance criteria are implicitly met by demonstrating this substantial equivalence and by the predicate devices having met their own, unstated, acceptance criteria in their original clearances.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Sample Size: Not applicable/Not provided. There is no specific "test set" or clinical data presented for this 510(k) submission to evaluate the devices for the extended indication. The submission relies on substantial equivalence to existing devices.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable/Not provided.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

• Number of Experts: Not applicable/Not provided. No new ground truth assessment by experts for a test set is mentioned.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not applicable/Not provided.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Adjudication Method: Not applicable/Not provided. There is no "test set" requiring adjudication.

5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done

• MRMC Study: No, an MRMC study was not done. This type of study is not relevant for this kind of device and its 510(k) submission, which focuses on mechanical function and equivalence rather than interpretive accuracy by human readers (like in imaging devices).

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

• Standalone Performance Study: No, a standalone performance study was not done. This is fundamentally a medical device submission, not an AI algorithm submission. The device is a tool used by a human operator, making "standalone" performance in an AI context inapplicable.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Type of Ground Truth: The concept of "ground truth" as typically applied in AI or diagnostic imaging studies (e.g., pathology, outcomes data) is not directly applicable here. The ground truth for this submission is implicitly the established safety and effectiveness of the predicate devices (Manual PD-IO and Powered PD-IO for proximal tibia, and Cook Inc. needles for distal tibia) through their various clearances and historical use. The argument is that the technology is the same, just applied to a new anatomical site with similar characteristics or to a site already covered by a predicate.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Sample Size: Not applicable/Not provided. There is no "training set" in the context of this device and submission.

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

• Ground Truth Establishment: Not applicable/Not provided.

Ask a specific question about this device