Recorded device evidence

Female Luer Lock Cap (K200425): indications, design and recorded evidence

The acquired K200425 file contains product-specific indications and users, design and operating principle, recorded comparison and differences, performance evidence actually described, clinical evidence or its stated absence 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 2026-10-08. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.

Computed exact-code research

This decision beside its recorded product-code cohort

The 2021–2025 complete-year cohort contains 59 selected decisions under primary code FPA. 59 have valid reported receipt/decision pairs; 0 pairs are missing or invalid.

Calendar elapsed days: lower quartile 137.5, median 223.0, upper quartile 279.0. These are recorded calendar differences, not active FDA review time.

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 recordRecorded deviceReceipt → decisionCalendar elapsed daysRecorded submission type
K200425 ↗ · this pageFemale Luer Lock Cap2020-02-20 → 2020-10-29252Traditional
K254123 ↗Ecomed Disposable Administration Sets2025-12-19 → 2026-09-11266Abbreviated
K261530 ↗iiSure Infusion Set2026-05-08 → 2026-06-0326Special
K252543 ↗AMSafe Administration Set (BA-70075, BA-70071-D, BA-70070, BA-70071-P, BA-70072, BA-70072-F, BA-70071-DF, BA-70071-DF-120, FE01, FE04)2025-08-12 → 2026-05-04265Traditional
K251375 ↗PuraCath Firefly Needleless Connector IT (9005)2025-05-02 → 2026-02-12286Traditional

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.

Calculation, selection and source versions

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; 0 parent records excluded; units record counts; calendar elapsed days.

Source snapshots: 5a86994ba49a37e71e09be96803fd51981c6c43eaa96caab41aea2b188bfe002.

Read beyond the decision row

Recorded evidence and differences to investigate

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.

Indications and users

K200425 · PDF page 5 ↗ 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.

Design and operating principle

K200425 · PDF page 4 ↗ Source 3

The Female Luer Lock Cap is an individually packaged, sterile, single use disposable
product used to cover male Luer fittings.

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.

Recorded comparison and differences

K200425 · PDF page 5 ↗ Source 2

Read this statement in the original PDF; no complete statement fits the short excerpt.

Compare with your product: The summary’s comparison is a manufacturer statement about that submission. Investigate the actual design differences and cited records before considering any comparator or predicate.

Performance evidence actually described

K200425 · PDF page 7 ↗ Source 4

Read this statement in the original PDF; no complete statement fits the short excerpt.

Compare with your product: The source labels this section as performance data. Determine which described evidence is bench, software, biological or clinical from the actual narrative and original tables; the section label alone does not settle that distinction or prescribe your testing.

Clinical evidence or its stated absence

K200425 · PDF page 9 ↗ Source 5

There were no clinical studies conducted in support of a substantial equivalence
determination.

Compare with your product: Preserve whether the summary describes clinical evidence or says none was performed. This recorded case does not determine whether your product needs clinical evidence.

Extraction selection and limits

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 facts and deciding inputs

Known context: US. Confirm the organisation’s role, relevant activities and markets against the cited criteria.

Source factRecorded valueWhat to check
510(k) identifierK200425 [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Generic device categoryFemale Luer Lock Cap [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Recorded applicantMedsafety Solutions, LLC [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
FDA product codeFPA [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Decision date2020-10-29 [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Recorded decision codeSESE [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Submission typeTraditional [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Receipt date2020-02-20 [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.

Prepare a differences and evidence worksheet

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.

  1. Indications and users — what differs in our 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.

    Useful evidence: Our proposed indication, user/population and use environment beside this exact recorded indication.

  2. Design and operating principle — what differs in our product?

    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.

  3. Recorded comparison and differences — what differs in our product?

    The summary’s comparison is a manufacturer statement about that submission. Investigate the actual design differences and cited records before considering any comparator or predicate.

    Useful evidence: Feature-by-feature differences and the underlying cited documents; no automated predicate selection.

  4. Performance evidence actually described — what differs in our product?

    The source labels this section as performance data. Determine which described evidence is bench, software, biological or clinical from the actual narrative and original tables; the section label alone does not settle that distinction or prescribe your testing.

    Useful evidence: The cited narrative and full tables, underlying protocols/results and a reviewed comparison with the proposed product.

  5. Clinical evidence or its stated absence — what differs in our product?

    Preserve whether the summary describes clinical evidence or says none was performed. This recorded case does not determine whether your product needs clinical evidence.

    Useful evidence: Your proposed claims and supporting evidence, plus a reviewed rationale for clinical-evidence needs.

Work packages and dependencies

What needs to happen first

Questions for providers

Sources and data dates

Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.

FDA openFDA — 510(k) decision records ↗

2026-10-05 · retrieved 2026-10-06

Audit details: precise locators and snapshot identifiers

Source key D01 · snapshot 5a86994ba49a37e71e09be96803fd51981c6c43eaa96caab41aea2b188bfe002

  • [1] device-510k-0001-of-0001.json:results[107086] · record 991b6d70ed4d0bf8c34fbe481ac0c73246e39b38b43446c5725f05042009b798
  • [6] Complete results array / fda-decision-context:K200425 · record whole dataset partition

FDA 510(k) summary — K200425 ↗

Fri, 30 Oct 2020 16:00:12 GMT · retrieved 2026-10-08

Audit details: precise locators and snapshot identifiers

Source key D02 · snapshot e92cafbd2038d2b46c55ad8ba0b4e50c19eb89a4cb4421c5d79685d737120db8

  • [2] PDF page 5 · record d80ded9103c1375a9f9030852787538074f77b78ac94cbb54a8b28c2f9caf95c
  • [3] PDF page 4 · record 9c3cc46719f15f35067b4df29def2787c0058e5f3cfa43c36d4c8a0ac9f36fe2
  • [4] PDF page 7 · record c3ad749596a6aef56aef7fc5b7940b12df0818def2c272230770b14356f3d827
  • [5] PDF page 9 · record 6d6a9255d4bcbf0d90442a33b24d7f5e862c61dae9483f5700c2096ab5ee1630

Prepare an editable project brief

Confirm the facts, scope and contact preference before sharing your project. Preparing this page sends no provider outreach.

Choose work packages to discuss

Compare FDA 510(k) Submission Services

Biocompatibility Testing (ISO 10993 Program)