Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(51 days)
For nasogastric oralgastric enteral feeding, incorporating safety connectors which eliminates the risk of IV administration through the feeding tube.
Nutrifit is a combined system of feeding tubes and extension sets. The feeding tubes are available in several configurations: Not made with DEHP PVC and Polyurethane (PUR). The PUR versions are available without stylet. All tubes include centimeter numerical markings from 5 to 35 cm for the 40, 50 and 75 cm feeding tubes and markings from 5 to 70 cm for the 90, 125 and 160 cm feeding tubes.
The Nutrifit devices are single-use, disposable devices intention in adults and children. Nutrifit PVC feeding tubes are intended for enteral nutrition and for a short-term use, not longer than 5 days. Nutrifit PUR feeding tubes are intended for enteral nutrition and for a short-term use, not longer than 29 days.
The Nutrifit accessories for this submission sets, which enable longer connections for the feeding tubes. They allow greater freedom of movement and greater flexibility and are available with or without a pinch clamp.
Nutrift is ENFit compliant, meeting requirements for design and functional performance of small-bore connectors intended to be used for connections on enteral medical devices and accessories as detailed in ISO 80369-3.
The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Vygon USA Nutrifit device, a gastrointestinal tube and accessories. It asserts the device's substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Nutrisafe 2) based on non-clinical performance bench testing.
Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided document:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
Test | Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|---|
Resistance to separation from unscrewing | Conformance to ISO 80369-3 specifications | Met predetermined acceptance criteria |
Resistance to overriding | Conformance to ISO 80369-3 specifications | Met predetermined acceptance criteria |
Disconnection by unscrewing | Conformance to ISO 80369-3 specifications | Met predetermined acceptance criteria |
Fluid leakage at 3.2 bar for 30 seconds | Conformance to ISO 80369-3 specifications | Met predetermined acceptance criteria |
Stress cracking | Conformance to ISO 80369-3 specifications | Met predetermined acceptance criteria |
Resistance to separation from axial load | Conformance to ISO 80369-3 specifications | Met predetermined acceptance criteria |
Flow rate testing (comparison to Nutrisafe 2) | Demonstrated similar flow rate performance to the predicate device per FDA cited protocol | Met predetermined acceptance criteria (implies similar flow) |
Packaging Validation | Sterile barrier system maintains strength, integrity, and microbial barrier until end of shelf life | Test results demonstrate compliance |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
The document does not specify the sample size used for the test set for any of the bench tests mentioned. It states "Adequate non-clinical performance bench testing was conducted" and "The VYGON's Nutrifit device met all predetermined acceptance criteria."
The data provenance is from non-clinical performance bench testing conducted by Vygon; the country of origin is not explicitly stated but implied to be internal testing by the manufacturer. The data is prospective for this device's evaluation.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications
This information is not provided in the document. The tests performed are engineering/performance-based bench tests, not clinical evaluations requiring expert interpretation of ground truth in the traditional sense (e.g., medical image interpretation). The "ground truth" for these tests would be the established specifications and standards (e.g., ISO 80369-3).
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
This is not applicable as the tests are objective, performance-based bench tests against defined specifications, not subjective assessments requiring adjudication by multiple experts.
5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done
No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document explicitly states "Bench Testing was conducted in order to support this submission." There is no mention of human readers or AI assistance.
6. If a Standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done
No, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was not done. The Nutrifit is a medical device (tubing and accessories), not an AI algorithm or software. The testing focuses on its physical performance and safety characteristics.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
The ground truth used for the performance testing cited is based on established engineering specifications, international standards (ISO 80369-3), and FDA guidance protocols (e.g., "Gravity Flow Rate Testing in Enteral Tube"). This falls under objective technical standards rather than expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
This information is not applicable as the Nutrifit device is a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm that requires a training set.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
This information is not applicable for the same reason as point 8.
Ask a specific question about this device
(276 days)
The MED-RX Pediatric Feeding Tube and Accessories are disposable, single use enteral feeding devices featuring non-luer enteral only connectors. The MED-RX Pediatric Feeding Tube is intended to be used for nasogastric enteral feeding, as directed by a physician. The MED-RX Enteral Extension Set is an accessory to the MED-RX Pediatric Feeding Tube, to be used to deliver fluids from the nutritional source to an existing non-luer pediatric feeding tube. The MED-RX Pediatric Feeding Tube and Accessories are for hospital use, pediatric patient use only, and are not intended for use beyond 30 days.
The MED-RX Pediatric Feeding Tube is intended to be used for nasogastric/oralgastric enteral feeding as directed by a physician. Accessories to be offered alongside the MED-RX Pediatric Feeding Tubes include MED-RX Enteral Extension Sets of various configurations. The MED-RX Enteral Extension Set is intended to be used to deliver fluids from the nutritional source to an existing non-luer pediatric feeding tube. The MED-RX Pediatric Feeding Tubes and Enteral Extension Sets feature non-luer enteral only connectors to decrease the risk of accidental misconnection. All devices are sterile, single-use, and latex free. The MED-RX Pediatric Feeding Tube and Accessories are for pediatric use only. Accessories may be sold with MED-RX Pediatric Feeding Tubes or separately.
The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device (MED-RX Pediatric Feeding Tube and Accessories). It describes non-clinical performance and biocompatibility testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than a study proving the device meets clinical acceptance criteria with respect to AI/algorithm performance. Therefore, many of the requested points, such as those related to AI/algorithm performance, ground truth, expert review, and MRMC studies, are not applicable to this document.
However, I can extract information related to the device's non-clinical acceptance criteria and the summary results of those tests.
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
Test | Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|---|
Feeding Tube Tensile Strength Test | Withstand tensile force of: 2 lbf (OD ≤ 2 mm), 4 lbf (OD > 2 mm) | PASS, PASS |
Extension Set Tensile Strength Test | Withstand tensile force of 4 lbf | PASS |
Leakage under Pressure | No leakage or separation under 50 kPa | PASS |
Leakage under Vacuum | No leakage or separation under vacuum | PASS |
Connector Separation | Withstand tensile force of 3.37 lbf (15 N) | PASS |
Device Compatibility | Incompatible with other recognized non-luer medical devices | PASS |
Latex Content | Contain less than 0.04% natural rubber latex | Less than 0.04% |
Sterility Assurance Level | Validated to a Sterility Assurance Level of 1 x 10⁻⁶ (ANSI/AMMI/ISO 11135:1994) | Validated to 1 x 10⁻⁶ |
EO Sterilization Residuals | Pass (ISO 10993-7: 2008) | Pass |
Bacterial Endotoxins | Pass (ANSI/AAMI ST72:2002) | Pass |
Cytotoxicity | Non-toxic (ISO 10993-5: 2009) | Non-toxic |
Intracutaneous Reactivity | Non-irritant (ISO 10993-10: 2010) | Non-irritant |
Guinea Pig Maximization Sensitization | No sensitization response (ISO 10993-10:2002) | No sensitization response |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
The document does not specify the exact sample sizes (number of units tested) for each non-clinical test. It states "The MED-RX Pediatric Feeding Tubes and MED-RX Enteral Extension Sets have successfully completed all required performance testing."
The data provenance is not explicitly stated in terms of country of origin of the data or retrospective/prospective nature. These are non-clinical bench tests performed by the manufacturer and a contract lab (Wuxi AppTec for Latex Content).
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 document describes non-clinical, physical, and biocompatibility testing, not a study involving expert human review or ground truth derived from clinical experts.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
Not applicable. As above, this pertains to non-clinical testing.
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 does not describe a study involving human readers or AI assistance.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
Not applicable. This document does not describe an algorithm or AI device.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" or reference for passing/failing is defined by established regulatory standards (e.g., ISO, ANSI/AAMI standards) and specific quantitative criteria (e.g., tensile force in lbf, pressure in kPa, latex percentage).
8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is a non-AI/algorithm device submission.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable. There is no "training set" or corresponding ground truth as this is a non-AI/algorithm device submission.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1