Search Results

HydroPICC Single Lumen: Indicated for short-or long-term peripheral access to the central venous system for intravenous therapy, including but not limited to the administration of fluids, medications, and nutrients; the sampling of blood; central venous pressure monitoring; and power injection of contrast media. Rated for maximum power injection flow rate of 5.0 ml/s

HydroPICC Dual Lumen: Indicated for short- or long-term peripheral access to the central venous system for intravenous therapy, including but not limited to the administration of fluids, medications, and nutrients; the sampling of blood; central venous pressure monitoring; and power injection of contrast media. Rated for a maximum power injection flow rate of 5.0 ml/s

HydroMID Single Lumen: Indicated for short term access(

The HydroMID catheters are a family of midline catheters comprised of a radiopaque, hydrophilic catheter with a suture wing, Luer lock hub, and extension tubing made from materials commonly used in the manufacture of catheters. Catheters are provided packaged in kit configurations with the appropriate accessories for placement in the respective clinical environments. The maximum power injection flow rate for the lumen is indicated on the extension tube clamp. HydroMID has been shown to be effective in reducing thrombus accumulation and thrombotic occlusions. Reduction of thrombus accumulation and thrombotic occlusions were evaluated using an in vitro model. Pre-clinical in vitro evaluations do not necessarily predict clinical performance with respect to thrombus formation.

The HydroPICC catheters are a family of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) comprised of a radiopaque hydrophilic catheter material with a suture wing, Luer lock hub, and extension tubing made from materials commonly used in the manufacture of catheters. Catheters are provided packaged in kit configurations with the appropriate accessories for placement in the respective clinical environments. The maximum power injection flow rate for the lumen is indicated on the extension tube clamp. HydroPICC has been shown to be effective in reducing thrombus accumulation and thrombotic occlusions. Reduction of thrombus accumulation and thrombotic occlusions were evaluated using an in vitro model. Pre-clinical in vitro evaluations do not necessarily predict clinical performance with respect to thrombus formation.

The purpose of this 510(k) is to add an additional statement to the indications for use.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter (K243458) details the HydroPICC and HydroMID catheters. The focus of this submission is to add a statement to the indications for use regarding the anti-thrombogenic properties of the MIMIX® Technology incorporated into these catheters. The acceptance criteria and supporting studies are described below:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The core acceptance criterion for this 510(k) submission is to demonstrate that the expanded Indications for Use statement, specifically concerning the anti-thrombogenic properties of the MIMIX® Technology, does not introduce new questions of safety or effectiveness and is supported by non-clinical data. The reported device performance is based on in vitro studies.

Note: The FDA letter explicitly states: "The clinical impact has not been evaluated in human clinical trials. This device is not intended for the treatment of existing vein thrombosis." This indicates that the acceptance criteria are based solely on in vitro performance for the anti-thrombogenic claims, not on in vivo clinical outcomes.

Study Details for Acceptance Criteria

The provided document does not fully delineate separate "test sets" for the in vitro studies in the way one might for an AI/algorithm-based device. Instead, the "studies" themselves are the performance evaluations for the stated acceptance criteria.

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • The document lists several in vitro tests.
   • Sample Size: The specific number of devices or experimental replicates used in each in vitro test is not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Data Provenance: All studies are indicated as "in vitro" (meaning conducted in a test tube, culture dish, or other controlled environment outside of a living organism). The country of origin is not specified but is presumably where Access Vascular Inc. conducts its research and development or contracts with testing facilities.

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

   • For in vitro studies of this nature (evaluating properties like thrombus accumulation), the "ground truth" is typically established by the experimental setup, validated measurement techniques, and potentially statistical analysis.
   • No specific number of experts or their qualifications are mentioned as having established "ground truth" for these in vitro tests in the context of expert consensus, as might be the case for image-based diagnostic devices. The results are based on objective physical or biological measurements.

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

   • Not applicable. Adjudication methods like "2+1" or "3+1" are typically used in clinical studies or studies involving subjective expert review (e.g., radiology image interpretation) to resolve discrepancies in independent assessments. As these are in vitro physical/biological tests, such adjudication methods are not relevant or mentioned.

4. 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 device is a medical catheter, not an AI software/algorithm requiring human reader interpretation. No MRMC study was conducted or is relevant for this device.

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

   • Not applicable. This device is a physical medical device (catheter) with a material technology, not an AI algorithm. Therefore, "standalone" algorithm performance is not a relevant concept for this submission.

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

   • The ground truth for the in vitro studies described (e.g., "Assessment of PICC Catheter Thrombosis," "Thrombosis Accumulation Report") is based on objective measurements of physical and biological phenomena (e.g., quantification of thrombus accumulation, pressure required to remove occlusions) within controlled laboratory environments. This is a form of empirical scientific measurement, rather than expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. There is no mention of a "training set" because this is a physical medical device, not an AI/machine learning model that requires training data.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable. As no training set is mentioned, the method for establishing ground truth for it is also not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

BD Nexiva™ Closed IV Catheter System - Single Port

BD Nexiva™ Closed IV Catheter System is intended to be inserted into a patient's peripheral vascular system for short term use to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids. These devices may be used for any patient population with consideration given to adequacy of vascular anatomy, procedure being performed, fluids being infused, and duration of therapy. The 22-18 GA (0.9-1.3 mm) devices are suitable for use with power injectors set to a maximum pressure of 300 psi (2068 kPa) when access ports not suitable for use with power injectors are removed.

BD Nexiva™ Closed IV Catheter System - Dual Port

BD Nexiva™ Closed IV Catheter System is intended to be inserted into a patient's peripheral vascular system for short term use to sample blood or administer fluids. These devices may be used for any patient population with consideration given to adequacy of vascular anatomy, procedure being performed, fluids being infused, and duration of therapy. The 22-18 GA (0.9-1.3 mm) devices are suitable for use with power injectors set to a maximum pressure of 300 psi (2068 kPa) when access ports not suitable for use with power injectors are removed.

BD Nexiva™ Closed IV Catheter Systems are over-the-needle, intravascular catheters. These devices have a radiopaque BD Vialon™ catheter, needle, needle shield, septum, stabilization platform, integrated extension tubing, clamp, Luer adapter (single or dual port), vent plug, and pre-attached needle-free connector (BD Q-Syte™ or BD MaxZero™) (dual port configurations only). The needle and catheter are protected by a needle cover. A BD Q-Syte™ Needle-free Connector, BD MaxZero™ Needle-free Connector, or end cap with protective cover is provided in the unit package (not available with all configurations).

The closed system is designed to keep blood contained within the device throughout the insertion process. The septum is designed to wipe visible blood from the needle surface as the needle is withdrawn from the catheter, further reducing the risk of blood exposure. The needle tip is passively protected when the needle is removed, reducing the risk of accidental needlestick injury.

These devices have BD Instaflash™ needle technology, allowing for immediate visualization of blood along the catheter. Continuous blood return is seen in the extension tubing. The vent plug prevents blood leakage from the extension tubing during insertion. Both the stabilization platform and Luer connector are color coded to indicate catheter gauge size (24 GA (0.7 mm) = Yellow, 22 GA (0.9 mm) = Blue, 20 GA (1.1 mm) = Pink, 18 GA (1.3 mm) = Green).

The provided 510(k) clearance letter and summary discuss the BD Nexiva™ Closed IV Catheter System, not an AI/ML medical device. Therefore, information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, and ground truth establishment pertinent to AI/ML device performance (sample sizes, expert consensus, MRMC studies, etc.) is not available in the provided text.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (K183399) through performance testing of the physical catheter system, rather than validating an algorithm's diagnostic or predictive capabilities.

The performance tests mentioned are:

• Frequency Response Testing
• Kink Resistance Testing
• Blood Fill Time Testing
• ISO 80369-7 Testing
• ISO 11607-1 Testing

However, the specific acceptance criteria and detailed reported performance results for these tests are not explicitly listed in a tabular format, nor are sample sizes, ground truth methodologies, or expert involvement for these physical device performance tests detailed as one might expect for an AI/ML device. The document only states that the device "met all predetermined acceptance criteria for the above-listed performance tests."

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/ML device as the input document describes a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

BD Cathena™ Safety IV Catheter is intended to be inserted into a patient's peripheral vascular system for short term use to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids. This device may be used for any patient population with consideration given to adequacy of vascular anatomy, procedure being performed, fluids being infused, and duration of therapy. This device is suitable for use with power injectors set to a maximum pressure of 325 psi (2240 kPa).

BD Cathena™ Safety IV Catheter is an over-the-needle, intravascular (IV) catheter. This device includes a radiopaque BD Vialon™ catheter, a needle, a grip, a passive safety needle shield, and a flash chamber with removable vent plug. The needle and catheter are protected by a needle cover. BD Cathena™ Safety IV Catheter has BD Instaflash™ Needle Technology, allowing for immediate visualization of blood along the catheter. The flash chamber provides confirmation that the device has entered the vessel. The needle tip is passively protected when the needle is removed, reducing the risk of accidental needlestick injury.

BD Cathena™ Safety IV Catheter is available with or without multi-access BD Multiguard™ Technology, which is designed to stop the flow of blood from the catheter hub until a Luer connection is made. Once a connection is made, fluids or blood can flow through the catheter hub in either direction.

BD Cathena™ Safety IV Catheter is available with or without wings. The catheter hub and wings are color coded to indicate the catheter gauge size (24 GA (0.7 mm) = Yellow, 22 GA (0.9 mm) = Blue, 20 GA (1.1 mm) = Pink, 18 GA (1.3 mm) = Green, 16 GA (1.7 mm) = Grey).

The FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the BD Cathena™ Safety IV Catheter (K251155) indicates that the submission is for manufacturing changes (new colorant supplier, new needle lubricant supplier) and the creation of new performance specifications for existing indications for use (blood sampling and blood pressure monitoring) rather than a novel AI/ML device. Therefore, a traditional acceptance criteria and study proving device meets acceptance criteria related to AI/ML performance, human reader improvement with AI assistance, or standalone algorithm performance, as typically understood in AI/ML medical devices, is not applicable here.

However, based on the provided document, the acceptance criteria and supporting studies are related to demonstrating that the modified device maintains substantial equivalence to its predicate for its stated indications for use, including the new performance specifications.

Here's an interpretation of the relevant information provided:

I. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are generally understood as the "predetermined design requirements" that the device must meet. The document states that the subject device met all predetermined acceptance criteria for the listed performance tests, demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate devices. Specific quantitative acceptance criteria are not explicitly detailed in this summary for each test, but the successful completion of these tests serves as evidence of meeting those criteria.

II. Sample Size and Data Provenance for Test Set

The document does not specify exact sample sizes for each performance test (e.g., number of catheters tested for Blood Fill Time, Kink Resistance, or Frequency Response). However, it implies that sufficient samples were tested to "ensure that the subject device meets pre-determined design requirements."

The "test set" in this context refers to the samples of the subject device used for physical and functional testing. The provenance of these samples would be prospective, as they are newly manufactured devices undergoing verification for the submission. No information is provided regarding the country of origin of this test data, but it would typically be generated at the manufacturer's testing facilities or authorized contract labs.

III. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

This question is not applicable in the context of this 510(k) submission. This is not a study assessing diagnostic or predictive performance requiring expert interpretation for ground truth. The "ground truth" for the performance tests (e.g., Blood Fill Time, Kink Resistance) is established through standardized laboratory measurement methods and engineering specifications, not expert consensus on medical images or clinical outcomes.

IV. Adjudication Method for Test Set

Not applicable. As described above, the tests are objective physical and functional performance assessments, not subjective interpretations requiring adjudication.

V. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No. An MRMC study is typically conducted for diagnostic imaging devices or AI tools where human readers are interpreting cases. This submission is for an intravascular catheter, a physical medical device. The "new performance specifications" are related to the physical and functional characteristics of the catheter (e.g., how quickly blood fills, how well it resists kinking for pressure monitoring), not to aiding human interpretation of medical data. Therefore, a study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not relevant or reported here.

VI. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

Not applicable. The BD Cathena™ Safety IV Catheter is a physical medical device and is not an AI algorithm. Its performance is assessed through physical and functional bench testing.

VII. Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" here is based on engineering specifications and standardized test methods. For example:

• Blood Fill Time: Measured against a specific time objective.
• Frequency Response: Measured against a defined physiological frequency range for accurate blood pressure monitoring.
• Kink Resistance: Measured against criteria for maintaining lumen patency under stress.
• Biocompatibility: Assessed against ISO 10993 standards.
• Sterilization: Assessed against ISO 11135 standards.
• Luer Connections: Assessed against ISO 80369-7 standards.

These are objective, quantitative measurements derived from established industry standards and internal design requirements, not from clinical outcomes, pathology, or expert consensus in a diagnostic sense.

VIII. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

IX. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ Shielded IV Catheter is intended to be inserted into a patient's peripheral vascular system for short term use to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids. This device may also be used to facilitate the placement of guidewires and other vascular access devices such as catheters without pre-attached hubs. This device may be used for any patient population with consideration given to adequacy of vascular anatomy, procedure being performed, fluids being infused, and duration of therapy. The 22-18 GA (0.9-1.3 mm) devices are suitable for use with power injectors set to a maximum pressure of 300 psi (2068 kPa).

BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ BC Shielded IV Catheter is intended to be inserted into a patient's peripheral vascular system for short term use to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids. This device may be used for any patient population with consideration given to adequacy of vascular anatomy, procedure being performed, fluids being infused, and duration of therapy. The 22-18GA (0.9-1.3 mm) devices are suitable for use with power injectors set to a maximum pressure of 300 psi (2068 kPa).

BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ BC Pro Shielded IV Catheter is intended to be inserted into a patient's peripheral vascular system for short term use to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids. This device may be used for any patient population with consideration given to adequacy of vascular anatomy, procedure being performed, fluids being infused, and duration of therapy. The 22-18 GA (0.9-1.3 mm) devices are suitable for use with power injectors set to a maximum pressure of 300 psi (2068 kPa).

BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ Shielded IV Catheter is an over-the-needle, intravascular (IV) catheter. This device includes a radiopaque BD Vialon™ Catheter Material, a needle, a grip with button, a flash chamber with vent plug, and a barrel. The needle and catheter are protected by a needle cover.

The 24-20 GA (0.7-1.1 mm) devices have BD Instaflash™ Needle Technology, allowing for immediate visualization of blood along the catheter. The flash chamber provides confirmation that the device has entered the vessel.

BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ Shielded IV Catheter incorporates BD Autoguard™ Push-button Shielding Technology which is activated when the button is depressed. A spring mechanism retracts the needle and flash chamber into the barrel, fully encasing the needle and reducing the risk of accidental needlestick injury.

BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ Shielded IV Catheter is available with or without wings. The catheter hub and wings are color coded to indicate catheter gauge size (24 GA (0.7 mm) = Yellow, 22 GA (0.9 mm) = Blue, 20 GA (1.1 mm) = Pink, 18 GA (1.3 mm) = Green, 16 GA (1.7 mm) = Grey, 14 GA (2.1 mm) = Orange).

BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ Shielded IV Catheter facilitates the introduction of guidewires and other vascular access devices. The following labeled gauge sizes correspond to the following inside diameter (ID): 24 GA (0.40 mm ID), 22 GA (0.55 mm ID), 20 GA (0.7 mm ID), 18 GA (0.8 mm ID), 16 GA (1.2 mm ID), and 14 GA (1.6 mm ID).

The 22-18 GA (0.9-1.3 mm) devices are suitable for use with power injectors set to a maximum pressure of 300 psi (2068 kPa).

BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ BC Shielded IV Catheter is an over-the-needle, intravascular (IV) catheter with blood control technology. This device includes a radiopaque BD Vialon™ Catheter Material, a needle, a grip with button, a flash chamber with vent plug, and a barrel. The needle and catheter are protected by a needle cover.

The blood control technology is designed to stop the flow of blood from the catheter hub until the initial Luer connection is made. Once the connection is made, fluids or blood can flow through the catheter hub in either direction.

The 24-18 GA (0.7-1.1 mm) devices have BD Instaflash™ Needle Technology, allowing for immediate visualization of blood along the catheter. The flash chamber provides confirmation that the device has entered the vessel.

BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ BC Shielded IV Catheter incorporate BD Autoguard™ Push-button Shielding Technology which is activated when the button is depressed. A spring mechanism retracts the needle and flash chamber into the barrel, fully encasing the needle and reducing the risk of accidental needlestick injury.

BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ BC Shielded IV Catheter is available with or without wings. The catheter hub and wings are color coded to indicate the catheter gauge size (24 GA (0.7 mm) = Yellow, 22 GA (0.9 mm) = Blue, 20 GA (1.1 mm) = Pink, 18 GA (1.3 mm) = Green, 16 GA (1.7 mm) = Grey).

The 22-18 GA (0.9-1.3 mm) devices are suitable for use with power injectors set to a maximum pressure of 300 psi (2068 kPa).

BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ BC Pro Shielded IV Catheter is an over-the-needle, intravascular (IV) catheter with blood control technology. This device includes a radiopaque BD Vialon™ Catheter Material, a needle, a grip with button, a flash chamber with vent plug, and a barrel. The needle and catheter are protected by a needle cover.

The blood control technology is designed to stop the flow of blood from the catheter hub until the initial Luer connection is made. Once the connection is made, fluids or blood can flow through the catheter hub in either direction.

The 24-18 GA (0.7-1.1 mm) devices have BD Instaflash™ Needle Technology, allowing for immediate visualization of blood along the catheter. The flash chamber provides confirmation that the device has entered the vessel.

BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ BC Pro Shielded IV Catheter incorporate BD Autoguard™ Push-button Shielding Technology which is activated when the button is depressed. A spring mechanism retracts the needle and flash chamber into the barrel, fully encasing the needle and reducing the risk of accidental needlestick injury.

BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ BC Pro Shielded IV Catheter is available with or without wings. The catheter hub and wings are color coded to indicate the catheter gauge size (24 GA (0.7 mm) = Yellow, 22 GA (0.9 mm) = Blue, 20 GA (1.1 mm) = Pink, 18 GA (1.3 mm) = Green, 16 GA (1.7 mm) = Grey).

The 22-18 GA (0.9-1.3 mm) devices are suitable for use with power injectors set to a maximum pressure of 300 psi (2068 kPa).

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter for three IV catheter devices, indicating that they are substantially equivalent to a previously cleared predicate device (K201075). It describes the changes made (new performance specifications and revised IFU) and provides a summary of performance tests conducted.

However, it does not contain the detailed acceptance criteria and reported device performance information that you specifically asked for in a table, nor does it describe a study that "proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the format of a clinical trial or algorithm validation study. The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, which often relies on bench testing and comparisons of technological characteristics, rather than extensive clinical studies or AI algorithm performance validation.

Therefore, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance from this document because it is not present. Similarly, information regarding sample sizes for test/training sets, data provenance, expert ground truth adjudication for AI, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, or training set ground truth establishment is not applicable or not provided within this 510(k) clearance document, as it pertains to a physical medical device (IV catheter) and not an AI/ML-driven device.

The study described to demonstrate substantial equivalence consists of bench testing to verify new performance specifications and ensuring compliance with relevant ISO and ASTM standards.

Here's an overview of the information that is available in relation to performance:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

• Not provided in this document. The document states that "the subject device met all predetermined acceptance criteria for the above-listed performance tests," but it does not specify what those acceptance criteria were (e.g., specific thresholds or ranges for frequency response, kink resistance, or blood fill time). It also does not present the numerical results ("reported device performance") of these tests.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. The document describes bench testing of physical devices, not an AI/ML system or a clinical study with a "test set" of patients or data in the context of AI validation.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. This information is relevant for AI/ML device validation and is not present for this physical medical device.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. This information is relevant for AI/ML device validation and is not present for this physical medical device.

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:

• No. This is not an AI/ML device, so an MRMC study is not relevant.

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

• No. This is not an AI/ML device.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. For the performance tests listed (Frequency Response, Kink Resistance, Blood Fill Time, Catheter Separation Force), the "ground truth" would be the direct measurements obtained from the physical properties of the devices themselves, compared against pre-defined engineering specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable / Not provided. This is not an AI/ML device.

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

• Not applicable / Not provided. This is not an AI/ML device.

Summary of Performance Tests and Compliance (as described in the document):

The document states that a risk analysis was conducted to assess the impact of modifications. When technological characteristics were identical to the predicate, results from the predicate were applied. For other aspects, the following tests were conducted:

BD Internal Requirements:

• Frequency Response Testing: To support blood pressure monitoring indications.
• Kink Resistance Testing: To support blood pressure monitoring indications.
• Blood Fill Time Testing: To support blood sampling indications.
• Catheter Separation Force: (No specific indication mentioned, but likely related to structural integrity during withdrawal)

Compliance with Standards Testing:

• Luer Testing: According to ISO 80369-7 (Small-bore connectors for liquids and gases in healthcare applications).
• Packaging Testing: According to ISO 11607-1, ASTM F2096-11 (for gross leaks), and ASTM F88/F88M-15 (for seal strength).
• Biocompatibility: According to ISO 10993-1 (general biological evaluation) and ISO 10993-5 (for in vitro cytotoxicity).

Conclusion: The document explicitly states: "Per the design control requirements specified in 21 CFR §820.30, the subject device met all predetermined acceptance criteria for the above-listed performance tests, demonstrating substantial equivalence to the predicate devices." This indicates that the tests were performed and the results aligned with the internal and regulatory specifications, affirming the device's substantial equivalence.

Ask a specific question about this device

BD Nexiva™ Diffusics™ Closed IV Catheter System is intended to be inserted into a patient's peripheral vascular system for short term use to sample blood, monitor blood pressure or administer fluids. This device may be used for any patient population with consideration given to adequacy of vascular anatomy, procedure being performed, fluids being infused, and duration of therapy. This device is suitable for use with power injectors set to a maximum pressure of 325 psi (2240 kPa) when access ports not suitable for use with power injectors are removed.

BD Nexiva™ Diffusics™ Closed IV Catheter Systems (Nexiva Diffusics) and BD Nexiva™ Diffusics™ Closed IV Catheter System with BD MaxZero™ Needle-free Connector (Nexiva Diffusics with Max Zero) are over-the-needle, intravascular (IV) catheters. These devices have a radiopaque BD Vialon™ Catheter Material with three side holes located near the tip of the catheter which are designed to optimize power injection procedures. These devices also have a needle, needle shield, septum, stabilization platform, integrated extension tubing, clamp, Luer connector, and vent plug. The Luer connector displays gauge-specific maximum flow rate and the maximum power injector pressure limit setting. The needle and catheter are protected by a needle cover. An end cap with protective cover is provided in the unit package.

A BD MaxZero™ device with protective cover is provided in the unit package for BD Nexiva™ Diffusics™ Closed IV Catheter System with BD MaxZero™ Needle-free Connector kit. The closed system is designed to keep blood contained within the device throughout the insertion process. The septum is designed to wipe visible blood from the needle surface as the needle is withdrawn from the catheter, further reducing the risk of blood exposure. The needle tip is passively protected when the needle is removed, reducing the risk of accidental needle stick injury.

These devices have BD Instaflash™ Needle Technology, allowing for immediate visualization of blood along the catheter. Continuous blood return is seen in the extension tubing. The vent plug prevents blood leakage from the extension tubing during insertion. The stabilization platform and Luer connector are color coded to indicate catheter gauge size (24 GA (0.7 mm) = Yellow, 22 GA (0.9 mm) = Blue, 20 GA (1.1 mm) = Pink, 18 GA (1.3 mm) = Green).

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the BD Nexiva™ Diffusics™ Closed IV Catheter System does not contain information related to software, artificial intelligence, or diagnostic imaging. Therefore, it is impossible to describe acceptance criteria and study details related to a device using AI, ground truth, expert readers, or sample sizes for training/test sets as requested in the prompt.

The document pertains to a physical medical device (an IV catheter system) and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices, focusing on:

• Indications for Use: Changes to include "blood pressure monitoring indication" for one of the devices.
• Physical Characteristics: Materials, dimensions, sterilization, and packaging components.
• Performance Testing: Mechanical and functional tests relevant to IV catheters (frequency response, kink resistance, blood fill time, luer lock performance, packaging integrity).

There is no mention of:

• A device that uses AI.
• Any form of image analysis, signal processing, or diagnostic output that would require a "test set," "ground truth," "expert consensus," "human-in-the-loop performance," or "MRMC comparative effectiveness study."
• Specific acceptance criteria percentages for sensitivity, specificity, or similar metrics typically associated with AI/diagnostic device performance.
• Training or test data sets, data provenance, or the number/qualifications of experts for labeling or adjudication.

The questions in the prompt are designed for a different type of medical device submission, specifically those involving software as a medical device (SaMD) or AI/machine learning components for diagnostic or prognostic purposes.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request as the provided text does not contain the necessary information.

Ask a specific question about this device

The RUBY Intravascular Catheter is inserted into a patient's vascular system to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids intravenously. The device may be used with consideration given to adequacy of vascular anatomy, appropriateness of the solution being infused, and duration of therapy. The RUBY Intravascular Catheter is suitable for use with power injectors.

The RUBY Intravascular Catheter is intended to be inserted in the patient's vascular system for short-term use to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids intravenously.

The RUBY Intravascular Catheter is indicated for use in pediatric patients (with body mass higher or equal to 10kg) and adults.

The RUBY™ Intravascular Catheter consists of a radiopaque catheter having a usable length of 1.30 inches in 20-gauge size. The device is a single use, sterile intravascular catheters designed to be inserted into a patient's vascular system to sample blood, monitor pressure, or administer fluids intravenously. The RUBY™ Intravascular Catheter's hub has a blood control valve mechanism that automatically activates to stop the blood flow in the catheter hub when the needle is removed from the catheter during initial insertion by the clinician. Blood flow from the catheter is restricted immediately after needle retraction until a secure luer connection has been made. The RUBY™ Intravascular Catheter is provided with a catheter guiding element with an atraumatic tip design positioned within the formed lumen between the catheter and the needle and connected to a slider used to deploy and retract the catheter guiding element; a flashback chamber to enhance flashback visualization, and a safety container that prevents sharp injuries.

This document is an FDA Clearance Letter for a medical device (Ruby Intravascular Catheter), not a study report or clinical trial. Therefore, it does not contain the detailed information required to answer your prompt about acceptance criteria and study findings related to AI/algorithm performance.

The provided text focuses on:

• Regulatory Clearance: Explaining that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device, allowing it to be marketed.
• Device Description: What the Ruby Intravascular Catheter is and how it functions.
• Indications for Use: For what medical purposes the device can be used (e.g., blood sampling, fluid administration).
• Comparison to Predicate: Highlighting similarities and differences between the Ruby Catheter and a previously cleared device (AccuCath).
• Safety and Performance Tests (General): Listing the types of tests performed (e.g., performance, biocompatibility, sterilization, shelf-life and the standards they followed (e.g., ISO, ASTM).

Crucially, there is no mention of any AI, algorithm, or software component within the Ruby Intravascular Catheter. The device is a physical medical instrument (a catheter), and the testing described pertains to its physical and biological properties.

Therefore, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria for algorithm performance, sample sizes for an AI test set, expert qualifications for AI ground truth, or details about MRMC studies, as these concepts are not applicable to the information given in the FDA clearance letter for this specific device.

To answer your prompt with the requested details, the input would need to be a clinical study report or a 510(k) submission summary specifically for a software as a medical device (SaMD) or a device with a significant AI/algorithm component.

If you have a document related to an AI-powered medical device, please provide that, and I will do my best to extract the relevant information.

Ask a specific question about this device

OSPREY Midline Closed IV Catheter System (OspreyEDC) is an intravascular catheter intended to be inserted into the patient’s vascular system for short-term use to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids intravenously. Blood is contained within the device during the catheter insertion process aiding in the prevention of blood exposure. This catheter may be used for any patient population with consideration given to adequacy of vascular anatomy and appropriateness of procedure.

The OSPREY Midline Closed IV Catheter System (OspreyEDC) is suitable for use with power injectors rated for a maximum of 325 psi when connected to male luer lock.

The OSPREY Midline Closed IV Catheter System (OspreyEDC) has a usable (deployed) catheter length of 3.25 inches. The device is a single use, sterile intravascular catheter designed to be inserted into a patient's vascular system to sample blood, monitor blood pressure, or administer fluids intravenously for short-term (

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary discuss a medical device, the OSPREY Midline Closed IV Catheter System (OspreyEDC-F20), and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This document primarily focuses on demonstrating that the new device is as safe and effective as a legally marketed device, rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and a study proving those criteria are met for an AI/software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD).

Here's an analysis based on the provided text, highlighting what information is available and what is not available regarding the specific questions about acceptance criteria and a study proving device performance in the context of AI/SaMD:

Summary of Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Based on provided document):

The document does not present explicit "acceptance criteria" in the format one might expect for a software or AI product's performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC). Instead, it demonstrates substantial equivalence by comparing the new device's technological characteristics and performance outcomes against a predicate device and relevant industry standards. The implicit "acceptance criteria" are that the new device performs at least as well as the predicate and meets established safety and performance standards.

Since this is a filing for a physical medical device (an IV catheter system) and not an AI/SaMD, many of the requested items related to AI model validation, such as test sets, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, and training set details, are not applicable and therefore not present in the document.

Here's a breakdown of the specific points from your request:

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

   • Available in document: Yes, a comparison table (Table VII - I) is provided on pages 7-11, outlining attributes of the subject device (OSPREY Midline Closed IV Catheter System) against the predicate device. This indirectly serves as acceptance criteria in the context of substantial equivalence for a physical medical device. The "Performance" section on page 12 also lists standards adhered to via bench testing.
   • Not explicitly stated as AI/SaMD performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity): This is a hardware device, so these metrics are not relevant or provided.

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

   • Not applicable/Not available in document: This information is typically for AI/SaMD. For a physical device, testing involves bench tests and biocompatibility, not data sets in the AI sense. No specific "sample sizes" for clinical data or data provenance are mentioned, as clinical studies in the AI context were not conducted or required for this type of device and submission. The document mentions "bench tests," but doesn't specify sample sizes for those tests.

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/Not available in document: "Ground truth" in this context refers to clinical data labeling for AI. For a physical device like a catheter, "ground truth" is established through engineering and biocompatibility standards, and performance against those standards is evaluated by engineers and lab personnel, not necessarily "experts" in the clinical decision-making sense with specific experience levels for data labeling.

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

   • Not applicable/Not available in document: This is relevant for clinical data labeling for AI performance evaluation.

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/Not available in document: This is entirely for AI-assisted diagnostic devices. This is a standalone physical medical device.

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

   • Not applicable/Not available in document: This pertains to AI algorithm performance.

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

   • Not applicable/Not available in document: As mentioned, for this physical device, "ground truth" is based on adherence to recognized industry standards (ISO, ASTM, USP) and established engineering principles and test methods (e.g., flow rate measurement, physical dimensions, material properties, biocompatibility assays).

8. The sample size for the training set

   • Not applicable/Not available in document: This applies to AI models.

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

   • Not applicable/Not available in document: This applies to AI models.

In conclusion, the provided document is a standard 510(k) submission for a physical medical device. It successfully demonstrates substantial equivalence to a predicate device by comparing design, materials, indications for use, and performance based on engineering bench tests and adherence to recognized international standards for medical devices. The specific questions you asked are geared towards the evaluation of Artificial Intelligence/Software as a Medical Device (AI/SaMD), which is not the subject of this 510(k) clearance letter.

Ask a specific question about this device

CentroVena Central Venous Catheter (CVC)

Acute central venous catheters are indicated to provide short term access (

Vena Central Venous Catheters are power-injectable, constructed of medical grade polyurethane and designed for insertion into the central venous system. The central venous catheters are radiopaque and have a soft tip that is more pliable than the catheter body. Each catheter is provided in a sterile package with other applicable insertion kit accessories.

The CentroVena One Insertion System integrates the essential components for placing central venous catheters. It combines an introducer needle with a passive needle tip safety mechanism, syringe, guidewire, and self-dilating catheter into one unit. The device is preassembled and also has an integrated drape clip permanently attached to the guidewire designed to keep the system organized in the sterile field and prevent guidewire embolism.

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device: CentroVena Central Venous Catheter (CVC) with the CentroVena One Insertion System.

Important Note: The document is primarily a regulatory approval and comparison to a predicate device. It lists numerous "acceptance criteria" through reference standards and tests, but it does not provide the specific numerical results or performance metrics that demonstrate the device quantitatively meets these criteria. It also doesn't detail specific study designs for these tests beyond listing the reference standards.

Therefore, the following information will be extracted where explicitly stated or inferable from the document. Many aspects of a detailed study design (like sample sizes for performance tests, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, or specific effect sizes for human performance improvement with AI) are not typically included in a 510(k) summary for a physical medical device like a catheter and related insertion system as they are more relevant to AI/software as a medical device studies.

Description of Acceptance Criteria and the Study that Proves the Device Meets the Acceptance Criteria

The CentroVena Central Venous Catheter (CVC) with the CentroVena One Insertion System underwent various performance and safety tests to demonstrate substantial equivalence to its predicate device, the BD Acute Central Line (K190855). The acceptance criteria for the device are primarily derived from compliance with recognized industry consensus standards and FDA guidance documents. The studies involved functional performance testing, biocompatibility testing, and evaluation of the insertion system.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria (as indicated by reference standards) and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The document does not explicitly state the specific sample sizes for each of the numerous tests conducted. The testing described is typical for physical medical devices and usually involves a statistically relevant number of units/components for each specific test to ensure robust results.

The data provenance is not explicitly stated beyond the fact that these are tests conducted by Becton Dickinson Inc. (BD) to support their 510(k) submission. These would generally be pre-market, prospective tests conducted in a controlled laboratory environment. The country of origin of the data is not mentioned but would presumably be where BD's testing facilities are located.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

This information is not applicable and not provided in the document. The device is a physical catheter and insertion system, not an AI/software device that requires expert labeled ground truth for image interpretation or diagnosis. The "ground truth" for these tests would be the established scientific and engineering principles outlined in the reference standards themselves.

4. Adjudication Method

This information is not applicable. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1 consensus) are typically used in studies where human readers are interpreting images or data and their decisions need to be reconciled to establish a ground truth, often for AI performance evaluation. This is not relevant for the type of bench and performance testing documented here.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No MRMC study was done or is mentioned. This type of study is specifically designed for evaluating the performance of diagnostic devices, especially those involving human interpretation (e.g., radiology AI aids), and comparing human performance with and without AI assistance. This device is a physical medical instrument, not a diagnostic AI.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

Not applicable. This device is a physical medical instrument, not an algorithm or software requiring standalone performance testing.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the various performance tests is established by:

• Established Industry Consensus Standards: Such as ISO 10993, ISO 10555, ASTM F640, etc. These standards outline methodologies and acceptable performance limits for specific characteristics of medical devices.
• FDA Guidance Documents: Which also provide testing recommendations and performance expectations for device types.
• Engineering Specifications and Design Requirements: The device must meet its own design specifications, which are based on the intended use and safety considerations, often derived from the above standards.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. This device is a physical medical instrument, not an AI/machine learning model that requires a training set. The tests performed are for verification and validation of the manufactured device.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

Not applicable. As there is no training set for this type of device, no ground truth needs to be established for it.

Ask a specific question about this device

The HydroMID 5F Dual Lumen Midline Catheter is indicated for short term access (

The HydroMID catheter is a 5 French, dual lumen, midline catheter comprised of a radiopaque, hydrophilic catheter with a suture wing, Luer lock hub, and extension tubing made from materials commonly used in the manufacture of catheters. Catheters are provided packaged in kit configurations with the appropriate accessories for placement in the respective clinical environments.

HydroMID has been shown to be effective in reducing thrombus accumulation and thrombotic occlusions. Reduction of thrombus accumulation and thrombotic occlusions were evaluated using in vitro and in vivo models. Pre-clinical in vivo evaluations do not necessarily predict clinical performance with respect to thrombus formation.

Catheter and accessories are supplied sterile. Product is sterilized by ethylene oxide (EO) except where labeled otherwise. Product should be stored in a cool, dry, dark place. The HydroMID Catheter is supplied in a dry state and must be hydrated before use.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the HydroMID 5F Dual Lumen Midline Catheter. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through bench testing. The document does not contain information about a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/human reader study or clinical performance with ground truth established by experts/pathology/outcomes data.

The "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in this document refer to engineering and performance bench testing of a physical medical device (a catheter), not a medical device software or AI algorithm. Therefore, many of the requested categories in the prompt (e.g., number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC study, standalone algorithm performance, training set details) are not applicable to this type of device submission.

However, I can extract the information relevant to the device's performance and the "acceptance criteria" as described in the 510(k) summary for this physical medical device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Bench Testing):

The document states: "All tests passed the acceptance criteria specified for both the subject and predicate devices." It does not provide specific numerical acceptance criteria or numerical reported performance values for each test. Instead, it lists the types of tests conducted.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

• Sample Size: The document states: "Testing was identical to the predicate in standard conformance, sample size, methods, and acceptance criteria." However, the specific numerical sample size for each test is not provided.
• Data Provenance: The tests are described as "Bench Data" conducted internally by the manufacturer, Access Vascular Inc. The country of origin for the data is not explicitly stated, but the company address is Billerica, MA, which implies the testing was conducted in the United States. The data is prospective in the sense that it was generated for this 510(k) submission to demonstrate the performance of the new device design.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Experts:

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device. Ground truth for its performance is established by engineering and material science testing against predefined specifications, not by human expert review of images or clinical outcomes in the typical sense of AI/image analysis.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not Applicable. See point 3. Testing results are objective measurements against established engineering standards.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, and the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs. without AI assistance:

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device (catheter), not a software or AI device intended to assist human readers.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Engineering Specifications and Standardized Test Methods: The "ground truth" for this device's performance revolves around its physical and functional properties meeting predetermined engineering specifications and validated test methods (e.g., pressure resistance, flow rates, dimensional accuracy, material properties like tensile strength and kink resistance, sterility, and MRI compatibility). These are objective criteria, not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in a clinical trial sense.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device; there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning. The device design and materials are based on established engineering principles and prior device iterations.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

• Not Applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System permits access to the patient's peripheral vascular system for short-term venous use (less than 30 days) to sample blood, administer fluids, and perform high pressure contrast injections at a maximum of 325 psi.

The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System permits access to the patient's peripheral vascular system for short-term use (less than 30 days) to facilitate arterial blood pressure measurement and blood sampling.

The safety feature is intended to minimize the risk of sharps injuries.

The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter may be used for any patient population with consideration given to adequacy of anatomy and appropriateness of the procedure.

The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter may be used in hospitals, clinics, and other advanced clinical facilities.

The subject device, Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System, is a sterile, single use peripheral intravascular device designed to permit access to the peripheral vascular system. The Endurance catheter is intended to permit access to the patient's peripheral vascular system for short-term venous use to sample blood, administer fluids and for high pressure contrast injections at a maximum of 325 psi. The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System permits access to the patient's peripheral vascular system for short-term arterial use to monitor arterial blood pressure and blood sampling. The safety feature is intended to minimize the risk of sharps injuries.

The Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System is available in a single lumen, 18 gauge configuration with usable length of 8 cm (3.15").

This document is a 510(k) summary for the Arrow™ Endurance™ Extended Dwell Peripheral Catheter System, seeking substantial equivalence to a predicate device. As such, it focuses on demonstrating equivalence through comparison of technological characteristics and nonclinical bench testing. It does not describe acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI-powered medical device.

The information provided confirms that the device is a physical intravascular catheter, not an AI/software device. Therefore, the specific requirements listed in the prompt (e.g., sample size for test/training sets, expert ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance) are not applicable to the content of this document.

The document highlights:

• Acceptance Criteria (Implied by equivalence): The "acceptance criteria" here are implicitly that the new device performs equivalently to the predicate device in relevant physical and functional characteristics, and that any differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.
• Reported Device Performance: This is demonstrated through a detailed comparison table (Section 7) and a list of "Nonclinical Testing" (Section 8).

Here's a breakdown of what is available and what is not relevant from your prompt:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document doesn't provide a typical "acceptance criteria" table with numerical targets as would be seen for an AI device. Instead, it presents a comparison to a predicate device. The "acceptance" is based on demonstrating that the subject device is "substantially equivalent" to the predicate, meaning it performs similarly and does not introduce new safety or effectiveness concerns.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:

• This is not an AI/software device, so there isn't a "test set" in the sense of a dataset for algorithm evaluation.
• The performance is evaluated through bench testing (listed in Section 8). Details on the specific sample sizes for these physical and material tests are not provided in this summary.
• Data provenance: Not applicable as it's not clinical data. The tests are laboratory-based, performed on manufactured devices.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/software device requiring expert labeling of data.
• The "ground truth" for a physical device is established through engineering specifications, material science, and performance standards.

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

• Not applicable. This concept is for resolving disagreements in expert annotations for AI datasets, not for physical device 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 device is a catheter, not an AI software intended to assist human readers.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm. Its performance is inherent in its physical properties and design.

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

• For physical devices like this, the "ground truth" for validating performance is typically derived from:
  • Engineering specifications and design requirements: Does it meet the intended physical dimensions, material properties, and functional outputs (e.g., flow rate, pressure limits)?
  • Recognized consensus standards: Compliance with ISO standards related to biocompatibility, sterilization, and general medical device safety.
  • Bench testing results: Data from rigorous laboratory tests simulating various use conditions.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning model.

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

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning model.

In summary, this 510(k) pertains to a physical medical device (catheter), not an AI/software product. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding AI device evaluation (test/training sets, expert ground truth, MRMC studies) is not relevant to this document. The "study" proving the device meets acceptance criteria is the comprehensive nonclinical bench testing outlined in Section 8, which demonstrates that the device performs functionally and safely, and is substantially equivalent to its predicate.

Ask a specific question about this device