Search Results

VenaOne is an easy to use system prescribed by healthcare professionals for stimulating blood flow in the legs (simulating muscle contractions) that aids in the prevention of DVT, enhances blood circulation, diminishes post-operative pain and swelling, reduces wound healing time, and aids in the treatment and healing of: stasis dermatitis, venous stasis ulcers, arterial and diabetic leg ulcers, chronic venous insufficiency, and reduction of edema in the lower limbs.

The VenaOne is a lightweight, portable battery powered prescriptive device. It is intended for stimulating blood flow in the legs (simulating muscle contractions) that helps stimulate blood flow as an aid in the prevention of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Its portable design allows patients to wear the unit during many clinical related activities, such as physical therapy sessions, wheel chair transportation, cafeteria sittings, and during general mobility throughout the clinic. As an easy to use system. VenaOne utilizes the pneumatically controlled chamber cuff actuated by an electronically controlled air pump unit and solenoid valve. All the pump and control components are protectively housed in a plastic case of the control unit that is permanently attached to an inflatable air bladder. An ON/OFF button, a display, and a battery icon provide for user interface. There is also a charging port for connecting the battery charger/AC adapter plug, and a USB cable port for connecting the VenaOne device to the computer for tracking patient device use time. The detachable rechargeable battery could be mounted on the control unit or on the separate charging station for charging. Prior to use, the cut-resistant air bladder and control unit are placed inside a disposable medical fabric or equivalent medical material. The VenaOne devices are supplied clean and non-sterile. In operation, the device could be powered on via the single ON/OFF button. The control unit then fills the air bladder to a pre-determined pressure (55 mmHg). The pressure of the air bladder is monitored by an internal pressure switch and system software. Once the pressure reaches the proper level, the pump is turned off, and the air bladder deflates to the ambient pressure through a valve inside the plastic case of the control unit. After the "rest" period of approximately 50 seconds, the cycle repeats until the unit is turned off.

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the VenaOne device, a compressible limb sleeve, which is a Class II medical device. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving performance against specific acceptance criteria through a clinical study. Substantial equivalence means that the device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed device that is not subject to premarket approval (PMA).

Therefore, the document does not contain the acceptance criteria and study details as requested for a performance claim based on clinical data or defined acceptance criteria for such a study.

Instead, it provides a comparison table between the VenaOne device and two predicate devices (DVTCare CA5 and Cirona 6400 Disposable Deep Vein Thrombosis Prevention System) to show that their indications for use, technological characteristics, and performance are substantially equivalent.

Here's an analysis based on the information provided, highlighting why it doesn't fit the requested format for acceptance criteria and study proof:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
   The document includes "Table 1. Comparison between the subject device and the predicate device" (pages 4-6). This table compares various attributes (e.g., intended use, power source, battery specifications, working pressure, cycle time, contraindications, materials, etc.) of the subject device (VenaOne) with the two predicate devices. For each attribute, it states whether the VenaOne is "Identical," "Similar," or "Identical or similar" to the predicates. This is a comparison for substantial equivalence, not a list of acceptance criteria with measured performance against those criteria.

   Example of a comparison from the document (not acceptance criteria):

   Feature	Acceptance Criteria (Not present as such)	Reported Device Performance (as comparison)
   Intended Use	N/A	Identical (to predicate devices)
   Working Pressure	N/A	Preset at 55 mmHg (Similar to predicates, which are 50 mmHg adjustable and 40 mmHg)
   Cycle Time	N/A	Approximately 60 seconds (Identical to predicates)
   Tolerances	N/A	± 5 mmHg (Similar to predicates, which are ± 4 mmHg and ± 5 mmHg)

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:
   The document does not describe a test set, sample size, or data provenance from a performance study. It references "non-clinical tests" (bench tests) to validate design and assure conformance with electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility standards, and software verification. These are engineering/device-specific tests, not clinical performance studies with a "test set" in the context of patient data.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
   This information is not applicable as there is no described clinical test set requiring expert ground truth establishment.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
   This information is not applicable as there is no described clinical test set requiring 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:
   This information is not applicable. The VenaOne is a mechanical device for DVT prevention and improved circulation; it is not an AI-assisted diagnostic or therapeutic tool that would involve human readers or MRMC studies.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
   This information is not applicable. Again, VenaOne is a mechanical device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
   The document mentions that "bench tests have been performed on the physical requirements, electrical requirement, and performance requirement," and "verification of software." These tests conform to voluntary standards (ANSI AAMI ES60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2). The "ground truth" for these tests would be the specifications and requirements defined by these standards, along with the device's own design specifications, rather than clinical outcomes or expert consensus.

8. The sample size for the training set:
   This information is not applicable as the device is not an AI/machine learning product that requires a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   This information is not applicable as the device is not an AI/machine learning product and therefore has no training set.

In summary, the provided document is a 510(k) summary demonstrating substantial equivalence, not a clinical study report proving performance against specific acceptance criteria for a new clinical claim. It relies on comparisons to already cleared predicate devices and non-clinical engineering tests to support its safety and effectiveness.

Ask a specific question about this device