Cruxi
Recorded device evidence
The acquired K192239 file contains product-specific indications and users, design and operating principle, non-clinical evidence actually described sections. Compare these dated manufacturer statements with your own indication and design before commissioning evidence work. They describe this submission; they do not prescribe your testing, validate performance independently or establish a suitable predicate.
Evidence retrieved 2026-10-07. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.
Computed exact-code research
The 2021–2025 complete-year cohort contains 0 selected decisions under primary code PQK. 0 have valid reported receipt/decision pairs; 0 pairs are missing or invalid.
No quartiles are displayed: this complete-year cohort has fewer than 20 valid pairs.
The table shows the named decision and up to four latest exact-code research records through 2026-09-27. It can include partial-year records outside the complete-year cohort. The quartiles above use the full stated cohort, not this displayed selection.
| Research record | Recorded device | Receipt → decision | Calendar elapsed days | Recorded submission type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K192239 ↗ · this page | WavelinQ Plus EndoAVF System | 2019-08-19 → 2019-10-17 | 59 | Traditional |
| K191114 ↗ | Ellipsys Vascular Access System (Ellipsys System), Power Controller, Ellipsys Vascular Access System (Ellipsys System), Catheter, Ellipsys Vascular Access System (Ellipsys System), Needle | 2019-04-26 → 2019-08-09 | 105 | Traditional |
| K182796 ↗ | WavelinQ 4F EndoAVF System | 2018-10-01 → 2019-02-06 | 128 | Traditional |
| K183615 ↗ | Ellipsys Vascular Access System (Ellipsys System), Power Controller, Ellipsys Vascular Access System (Ellipsys System), Catheter, Ellipsys Vascular Access System (Ellipsys System), Crossing Needle | 2018-12-26 → 2019-01-25 | 30 | Special |
| K181725 ↗ | Ellipsys Vascular Access System (Ellipsys System), (Power Controller Model No. AMI-1001 & Catheter & Needle Model No. AMI-6005) | 2018-06-29 → 2018-10-05 | 98 | Traditional |
Use this comparison: select a record to investigate, read its actual indications and design, and document differences. A shared code or elapsed period cannot establish its relevance to your device.
Calendar elapsed days are not active FDA review time, a promised schedule or a success probability. The selection includes only the stated recorded decisions, not all applications. Latest records can postdate the named historical decision and are contextual research, not its predicates. Shared codes, summaries and observed records do not prove equivalence, current market availability, buyer applicability or predicate suitability.
Reuse the complete-endpoint exact-primary-code, documented SE-decision cohort and its stated cutoff/window. Retain its type-7 quartiles only when at least 20 valid date pairs are present. Independently subtract the named official record’s receipt date from its decision date; missing or negative pairs remain unknown. Show up to four latest exact-code research records, excluding the named ID. Parent analysis hash, source snapshots and calculation versions are retained.
Calculation: fda-named-decision-cohort-context-1; cutoff 2026-09-27; 2 parent records excluded; units record counts; calendar elapsed days.
Source snapshots: 5a86994ba49a37e71e09be96803fd51981c6c43eaa96caab41aea2b188bfe002.
Read beyond the decision row
The summary is manufacturer-submitted context hosted by FDA. Negative/no-study statements are preserved. Evidence themes are not binding legal requirements.
Short opening excerpts identify the source sections. Read the linked original for the full study context, negative statements, tables and limitations. Public quotations are limited to 120 words per acquired summary; the internal evidence packet retains exact section ranges for review.
K192239 · PDF page 3 ↗ Source 2
Read this statement in the original PDF; no complete statement fits the short excerpt.
Compare with your product: Compare the recorded indication, population, body site and use environment with your proposed label. Record each change instead of assuming the primary code settles intended use.
K192239 · PDF page 5 ↗ Source 3
The W avelinQ™ EndoAVF System consists of two single- use disposable magnetic catheters: a venous catheter and an arterial catheter.
The excerpt is shortened at a complete statement. Read the complete section in the original PDF before interpreting the evidence.
Compare with your product: Compare physical design, materials, energy, accessories and operating principle with your design. Ask which documented differences change the evidence scope.
K192239 · PDF page 6 ↗ Source 4
To demonstrate that the subject device W avelinQTM EndoAVF System is as safe and effective as the predicate device W avelinQTM 4F EndoAVF System, the technological characteristics and performance criteria were evaluated.
Compare with your product: Treat these as documented evidence themes in this case, including any limitations or negative statements. Ask which protocols, design inputs and acceptance rationale would be justified for your product; these excerpts are not a mandatory test panel.
Select observed whole-line section headings or explicit colon-delimited inline labels on readable PDF pages, including the explicitly documented heading-spacing variants in this parser version. Preserve the original heading, character ranges and layout; do not repair excerpt text. Exclude letter boilerplate and uncertain pages. Stop at observed table headings; do not infer table columns or scalar results from layout text. Multi-column or suspicious split-numeric excerpts are excluded until reviewed alternate extraction is available. Original layout records remain retained; any alternate text has its own extractor-version locator and requires original-page review. For each dimension, prefer usable versioned alternate text where available, selecting its longest usable excerpt; otherwise select the longest usable original-layout excerpt. Ties preserve source order. Bounded to 64 PDF pages and 3,500 characters per section. This is a selection, not a complete dossier analysis.
Excluded extraction items: {}.
Known context: US. Confirm the organisation’s role, relevant activities and markets against the cited criteria.
| Source fact | Recorded value | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| 510(k) identifier | K192239 [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| Generic device category | WavelinQ Plus EndoAVF System [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| Recorded applicant | C.R. Bard, Inc. [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| FDA product code | PQK [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| Decision date | 2019-10-17 [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| Recorded decision code | SESE [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| Submission type | Traditional [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
| Receipt date | 2019-08-19 [1] | Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device. |
Use this checklist to gather your business or product details before speaking with a specialist. The items below explain what to record and suggest useful supporting documents. You can add your own answers in the editable project brief.
Compare the recorded indication, population, body site and use environment with your proposed label. Record each change instead of assuming the primary code settles intended use.
Useful evidence: Our proposed indication, user/population and use environment beside this exact recorded indication.
Compare physical design, materials, energy, accessories and operating principle with your design. Ask which documented differences change the evidence scope.
Useful evidence: Design description, materials/components, accessory list and a differences matrix.
Treat these as documented evidence themes in this case, including any limitations or negative statements. Ask which protocols, design inputs and acceptance rationale would be justified for your product; these excerpts are not a mandatory test panel.
Useful evidence: Existing protocols/results and design-specific evidence gaps, with standard editions and scope reviewed separately.
Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.
2026-10-05 · retrieved 2026-10-06
Source key D01 · snapshot 5a86994ba49a37e71e09be96803fd51981c6c43eaa96caab41aea2b188bfe002
Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:54:40 GMT · retrieved 2026-10-07
Source key D02 · snapshot d63d1ffa7abc4c05a6e333f7d745121cefb351206bdc1d1b56472e1af4091541
Confirm the facts, scope and contact preference before sharing your project. Preparing this page sends no provider outreach.