Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(133 days)
The AccuCath Ace™ Intravascular Catheter is indicated for vascular access, including both the external and internal jugular veins, to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids intravenously. This device may be used with consideration given to adequacy of vascular anatomy, appropriateness of the solution being infused, and duration of therapy. The AccuCath Ace™ IV Catheter is suitable for use with power injectors.
The AccuCath Ace™ Intravascular Catheter consists of a radiopaque catheter with a valve mechanism delivered over a guidewire with an atraumatic tip design; a flashback chamber to enhance flashback visualization, and a safety container that prevents sharp injuries. The AccuCath Ace™ Intravascular Catheter is designed to reduce blood exposure during insertion. The devices are single use, sterile, intravascular catheters offered in 18, 20, and 22 gauge configurations. All lumens are power injectable at their labeled flow rate. The AccuCath Ace™ Intravascular Catheter is offered in Emergent Access Kit configurations with various components provided for the convenience of the end user.
The provided text describes the AccuCath Ace™ Intravascular Catheter, which is a medical device for vascular access. The submission is a 510(k) premarket notification, indicating that the manufacturer is seeking to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving novel effectiveness. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "device performance" are typically framed in terms of meeting established industry standards and functional requirements that are substantially equivalent to the predicate.
Here's an analysis of the requested information based on the provided text:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
The document does not explicitly state "acceptance criteria" as a pass/fail threshold for a specific performance metric in a clinical study. Instead, it demonstrates compliance with recognized standards and performs a series of engineering tests to show substantial equivalence to a predicate device.
Acceptance Criteria Category (Implied) | Reported Device Performance (Summary of Test Results) |
---|---|
Biocompatibility | Met ISO 10993-1. Leveraged from predicate (K162894) and reference (K153280) devices. |
Sterility | Met AAMI/ANSI/ISO 11135:2014. |
Risk Analysis | Performed per ISO 14971. Changes assessed, no new/different safety/effectiveness questions. |
General Catheter Requirements | Met ISO 10555-1:2013. |
Power Injection Conditioning | Catheter does not leak or burst at maximum indicated flow rate during power injections. |
Hydraulic Catheter Burst Test | Catheter burst pressure exceeds peak pressure at maximum flow conditions when distal end is occluded. |
Shaft Tensile Test | Peak tensile force of each test piece exceeds the minimum peak tensile force. |
Technological Equivalence | Basic design and function are substantially equivalent to the predicate device (AccuCath™ Intravascular Catheter K162894). Materials are biologically safe, and design changes are substantially equivalent. |
Intended Use/Indications | Modifications to indications for use and instructions have no impact on intended use or technological characteristics. |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
The document describes engineering bench tests and compliance with standards, not a clinical study on human subjects with a "test set" in the sense of patient data.
- Sample size for bench tests: Not explicitly stated for each test (e.g., number of catheters tested for burst pressure).
- Data provenance: Not applicable in terms of country of origin or retrospective/prospective, as these are lab-based engineering performance tests, not clinical data sets.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
This is not applicable as the submission focuses on functional and safety performance, not diagnostic accuracy where expert ground truth would be needed. The "ground truth" for these tests are the defined parameters and methodologies of the relevant ISO standards.
4. Adjudication method for the test set
Not applicable for engineering bench tests.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done
No, a multi-reader multi-case comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is typically used for diagnostic or imaging devices to assess human performance with and without AI assistance. This device is an intravascular catheter, and the submission is for substantial equivalence based on safety and functional performance, not diagnostic accuracy or AI assistance.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done
This question is not applicable to an intravascular catheter. There is no algorithm for this device that would operate standalone or with human-in-the-loop.
7. The type of ground truth used
The "ground truth" for the tests performed are the specifications and requirements defined by recognized consensus standards (e.g., ISO 10993-1, AAMI/ANSI/ISO 11135:2014, ISO 14971, ISO 10555-1:2013) as well as internal engineering specifications for functional parameters like burst pressure and tensile strength.
8. The sample size for the training set
Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML algorithm or diagnostic tool that requires a "training set."
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
Not applicable, as there is no "training set" for this device.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1