Search Results

3M™ Tegaderm™ CHG Dressings (Chlorhexidine Gluconate I.V. Securement Dressing), can be used to cover and protect catheter sites and to secure devices to skin. Common applications include IV catheters, other intravascular catheter and percutaneous devices.

3M™ Tegaderm™ CHG Dressing, Chlorhexidine Gluconate I.V. Securement Dressing, is used to cover and protect catheter sites and to secure devices to skin. Available in a variety of shapes and sizes to meet the needs of the caregiver.

Tegaderm™ CHG Dressing consists of a transparent adhesive dressing and an integrated pad containing Chlorhexidine Gluconate (CHG), a well-known antiseptic agent with broad-spectrum antimicrobial and antifungal activity. The dressing is a barrier to liquid (waterproof), bacteria and viruses* and yeast, and protects the IV site from outside contamination. The pad absorbs up to eight times its weight in fluid. In vitro testing (log reduction, barrier, and zone of inhibition) demonstrates that the Tegaderm™ CHG dressing has an antimicrobial effect against, and is a barrier to, the passage of a variety of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria and yeast in the dressing. Tegaderm™ CHG Dressing is transparent, allowing continual site observation, and is breathable, allowing good moisture vapor exchange.

• In vitro testing has proven that Tegaderm CHG provides a viral barrier from viruses 27 nm in diameter, (e.g. HCV) or larger (e.g. HBV and HIV) while the dressing remains intact without leakage.

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for a medical device (3M™ Tegaderm™ CHG Dressing) and primarily focuses on regulatory clearance by demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than presenting a performance study with acceptance criteria in the way you've described for an AI/device performance evaluation.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert involvement, and MRMC studies is not available in the provided text. The document describes the device's function and properties, and mentions "in vitro testing" as proof of certain antimicrobial effects, but it does not detail those tests with acceptance criteria or performance metrics in a structured format as typically found in clinical performance studies.

Here's an analysis based on the available information:

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

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated in terms of quantitative performance metrics for a specific study. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices and inherent properties.
• Reported Device Performance:
  • "In vitro testing (log reduction, barrier, and zone of inhibition) demonstrates that the Tegaderm™ CHG dressing has an antimicrobial effect against, and is a barrier to, the passage of a variety of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria and yeast in the dressing."
  • "In vitro testing has proven that Tegaderm CHG provides a viral barrier from viruses 27 nm in diameter, (e.g. HCV) or larger (e.g. HBV and HIV) while the dressing remains intact without leakage."

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

• Sample Size: Not specified. The descriptions refer to "in vitro testing" which typically involves laboratory experiments with microbial cultures, not patient-derived "test sets" in the context of clinical studies.
• Data Provenance: The testing is described as "in vitro testing," meaning laboratory-based. No country of origin for the data is mentioned, nor is it classified as retrospective or prospective study design.

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 as this document describes in vitro (laboratory) tests, not human- expert-interpreted data.

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

• Not applicable. The "test set" refers to microbial cultures in a lab, not data requiring 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 is a medical dressing, not an AI diagnostic device. No human reader or AI component is involved.

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

• Not applicable. This is a medical dressing, not an algorithm.

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

• Ground Truth: For the "in vitro testing," the ground truth would be established by standard microbiological methods (e.g., direct measurement of log reduction, observation of zone of inhibition, successful barrier against organisms). This is empirical, objective lab data rather than expert consensus or pathology.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. As a medical dressing, there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device