Infusion Pumps Total Product Life Cycle Guidance For Industry and FDA Staff

Infusion Pumps Total Product Life
Cycle
Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff
Document issued on: December 2, 2014.
The draft of this document was issued on April 23, 2010.
This document supersedes the “Guidance on the Content of Premarket

Notification [510(k)] Submissions for External Infusion Pumps,” issued March,
1993.
For questions regarding this document, please contact Alan Stevens, General Hospital Devices
Branch, Office of Device Evaluation at 301-796-6294 or via email at [email protected].
For questions regarding safety assurance cases, please contact Richard Chapman, General Hospital
Devices Branch, Office of Device Evaluation at 301-796-2585 or via email at
[email protected].
For questions regarding pre-clearance inspections, please contact Francisco Vicenty, Respiratory,
Ear/Nose/Throat, General Hospital, Infectious Control, and Ophthalmic Devices Branch, Office of
Compliance at 301-796-5770 or via email at [email protected].
For questions pertaining to manufacturer reporting requirements, please contact Sharon Kapsch at
301-796-6104 or via email at [email protected].
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Office of Device Evaluation

Division of Anesthesiology, General Hospital,
Respiratory, Infection Control, and
Dental Devices
General Hospital Devices Branch
Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
Preface
Public Comment
You may submit electronic comments and suggestions at any time for Agency consideration to
http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management,
Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, (HFA-305), Rockville, MD,
20852. Identify all comments with the docket number FDA-2010-D-0194. Comments may not be
acted upon by the Agency until the document is next revised or updated.
Additional Copies
Additional copies are available from the Internet. You may also send an e-mail request to CDRH-
[email protected] to receive a copy of the guidance. Please use the document number 1694
to identify the guidance you are requesting.
2
Contains Nonbinding Recommendations
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 4
2. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................. 5
3. SCOPE .................................................................................................................................................................. 5
4. DEVICE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................... 6
5. SAFETY ASSURANCE CASE........................................................................................................................... 9
A. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR SAFETY CASE DEVELOPMENT............................................... 10
B. HAZARD ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................... 12
C. PERFORMANCE TESTING ........................................................................................................................... 17
D. LABELING ........................................................................................................................................................ 29
E. ALARMS ............................................................................................................................................................ 32
F. SAFETY CONTROL MECHANISMS............................................................................................................ 32
6. 510(K) PRE-CLEARANCE INSPECTION OF INFUSION PUMP MANUFACTURERS ....................... 33
7. POSTMARKET SURVEILLANCE OF INFUSION PUMPS....................................................................... 34
3
Infusion Pumps Total Product Life
Cycle
Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff
This guidance represents the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA's) current thinking on
this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to
bind FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if the approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. If you want to discuss an alternative
approach, contact the FDA staff responsible for implementing this guidance. If you cannot
identify the appropriate FDA staff, call the appropriate number listed on the title page of this
guidance.
1. Introduction
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has developed this guidance document to assist
industry in preparing premarket submissions for infusion pumps and to identify device features
that manufacturers should address throughout the total product life cycle. Infusion pumps, as
described in 21 CFR 880.5725, are intended for use in a health care facility to pump fluids 1 into a
patient in a controlled manner. 2
The recommendations in this guidance are intended to improve the quality of infusion pumps in
order to reduce the number of recalls and adverse events associated with their use. The FDA
believes that these recommendations will help mitigate current risk and reduce future risk
associated with infusion pumps.
FDA’s guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable
responsibilities. Instead, guidances describe the Agency’s current thinking on a topic and should
be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are
cited. The use of the word “should” in Agency guidances means that something is suggested or
recommended, but not required.
1
For purposes of this guidance, the term “fluids” refers to FDA approved drugs and licensed biological products.
2
This guidance also includes recommendations for prescription infusion pumps intended for use by lay users in the
home or elsewhere. For purposes of this guidance, “lay users” or “home users” are users who receive infusion pumps
from or on the order of a health care provider and who use the pumps under the supervision of a licensed practitioner
in any setting outside a healthcare facility, including the home.
4
2. Background
The FDA has evaluated a broad spectrum of infusion pumps across manufacturers and has
encountered problems with device software, human factors, reliability and manufacturing. Based
on an evaluation of reported adverse events and recalls, FDA believes that many injuries and
adverse events may be avoided by improving the design verification and validation processes for
these devices. The most frequently reported infusion pump device problems are: software error
messages, human factors (e.g., use error related to instructions for use, training, and other user
interface issues), broken components, battery failure, alarm failure, and over infusion and under
infusion. In some reports, the manufacturer was unable to determine or identify the problem and
reported the problem as “unknown.” Subsequent analyses revealed that many of these were
related to design problems that could be corrected during the design processes. This guidance is
intended to improve the quality of infusion pumps and thereby reduce the incidence of these
problems.
3. Scope
The scope of this document is limited to class II devices classified under the regulation, 21 CFR
880.5725, which includes devices with the product codes listed in Table 1. The product codes
listed are those that currently fall within the scope of 21 CFR 880.5725. Devices classified with
future product codes created under 21 CFR 880.5725 following publication of this guidance are
within the scope of this guidance document.
Note that infusion pumps submitted as part of a class III system are subject to the premarket
approval application (PMA) pathway. While this guidance may provide valuable information
regarding the elements to consider for a pump submitted as part of a PMA, such as hazard
identification and sources of hazardous situations, not all items addressed in this guidance and
recommended for a 510(k) submission would be relevant to a PMA submission. In addition,
additional items may be required for a PMA that would not be required as part of a 510(k)
submission.
§ 880.5725 Infusion pump

(a) Identification. An infusion pump is a device used in a health care facility to pump fluids
into a patient in a controlled manner. The device may use a piston pump, a roller pump, or
a peristaltic pump and may be powered electrically or mechanically. The device may also
operate using a constant force to propel the fluid through a narrow tube which determines
the flow rate. The device may include means to detect a fault condition, such as air in, or
blockage of, the infusion line and to activate an alarm.
(b) Classification. Class II (performance standards).
Table 1
Product code Description
FRN Infusion pump
MEA Patient controlled analgesia (PCA) infusion pump
MEB Elastomeric infusion pump
LZG Insulin infusion pump
OPP Insulin bolus infusion pump
LZH Enteral infusion pump
5
MRZ Infusion pump accessories
PHC Infusion Safety Management Software
For purposes of this guidance document, FDA defines the infusion pump system to include the:
• Infusion pump;
• Fluid infusion set for the complete fluid pathway from, and including, the drug reservoir or
fluid source container (e.g., bag, cassette, vial, syringe), infusion set, extension sets, filters and
valves, clamps, up to and including the patient connection;
• Components and accessories (e.g., power cord, wireless controller);
• Network (i.e., any device or system physically or wirelessly connected to the infusion pump);
• Patient;
• Environment of use (e.g., clinical setting, temperature, humidity); and
• User (e.g., health care provider, lay user, biomedical technicians).
If you intend to provide or recommend particular disposable functional devices for use with your
infusion pump, such as infusion sets or cassettes, whether manufactured by you or another firm,
you should identify these devices and whether they are legally marketed. Please note that for
purposes of this guidance document, FDA considers such disposable devices to be part of the
infusion pump system. Your device should be evaluated as a system, and the focus of the
evaluation is on your product and its performance within the context of the infusion pump system.
In some instances, an infusion pump in conjunction with the fluid it delivers may be considered a
combination product. See 21 CFR 3.2(e). If marketed as a combination product, additional
regulatory requirements may need to be addressed for the combination product. For additional
information about combination products, please contact the Office of Combination Products
(OCP) at [email protected], or see the OCP webpage at
http://www.fda.gov/combinationproducts/default.htm.
4. Device Description
We recommend that you identify your device by the regulation and product code described in
Section 3. Scope. In your 510(k) submission, you must provide a statement indicating your
device is similar to and/or different from other products of comparable type in commercial
distribution, accompanied by data to support the statement, as required by 21 CFR 807.87(f).
Side by side comparisons, whenever possible, are desirable.
In addition to providing the information required in a premarket notification submission under 21

CFR 807.87, you should include the following descriptive information about your device:
• A clear statement of the indications for use. The indications for use should address:
o the intended use environment;
o the intended route(s) of administration for infusion;
o any specific uses for the infusion pump (e.g., PCA is a generally accepted specific
use); and
o the indicated treatment population.
6
• FDA recommends that submissions include the documents that result from the design input
and output processes that define the device (i.e., functional, performance, and interface
characteristics) in engineering terms. 3 There may be several such documents, covering the
major hardware and software components of the system.
• Provide a detailed description (including, where appropriate, assembly drawings, bill of

materials, schematics, and/or specification control documents) of the pump and its functional
components and accessories, including:
o The infusion delivery mechanism;

o The bolus mechanism;
o The drug reservoir;
o Pump tubing and connectors (built-in or external to the pump);
o A user-interface, consisting of the programming unit, display unit, audio and tactile
notification units;
o Power supply;
o Pump battery and circuitry to charge and monitor the battery; and
o A communication interface, including network components and interfaces to other
devices and systems.
• You should describe the principle of operation of the infusion pump (i.e., the scientific
principles behind how the device achieves its intended use).
• If the infusion pump is labeled for use with a specific device, drug, or biologic, the labeling of
the products should be consistent and you should provide the FDA approved labeling for that
referenced device, drug, or biologic. 4
• For each route of administration identified in your statement of intended use, you should
identify a legally marketed drug or biologic to demonstrate that at least one such product is
approved or licensed for infusion through the pump for the proposed route of administration
and at the proposed dosage. You should provide the FDA approved labeling identifying the
proposed route of administration for the identified drug or biologic.
• If your infusion pump is intended for transport or ambulatory use, you should describe how it
is designed for mobility, various environmental conditions (e.g., water exposure, altitude,
electromagnetic interference), and ruggedness.
• If your infusion pump is intended for lay use, you should describe how the device has been
designed to be used by the lay user population, which often has limited or no clinical
background, and how you have mitigated hazards arising from lay use. It is recommended that
you reference the FDA’s Guidance on Medical Device Patient Labeling
(http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/uc
m070782.htm). FDA has issued a draft guidance on this topic, Draft Guidance for Industry
and Food and Drug Administration Staff - Applying Human Factors and Usability
3
Your firm may refer to these documents as “system specifications,” “design requirements,” “requirements
specifications,” or by other similar names.
4
FDA will consider whether the infusion pump and the specified drug or biological product constitute a combination
product, as defined in 21 CFR 3.2(e).
7
Engineering to Optimize Medical Device Design
m259748.htm). When finalized, this guidance will represent FDA’s current thinking on this
topic.
• You should state if your device is capable of being remotely controlled from a distance and
describe the measures incorporated to address hazards.
• If your infusion pump incorporates or is intended to incorporate radio-frequency (RF) wireless

technology (e.g., IEEE 802.11, Bluetooth, Zigbee), the description should include information
about the specific RF wireless technology and characteristics, the RF wireless technology’s
use and functions (e.g., remote monitoring or control, software updates), the data to be
transmitted including any alarms transmitted wirelessly, quality of service (QoS) needed,
wireless security measures and protocols, and any limitations or restrictions relating to
coexistence with other RF wireless technology and electromagnetic compatibility of the
wireless technology. Please refer to the FDA’s guidance, Radio Frequency Wireless
Technology in Medical Devices
(http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm07
7210.htm).
• If your infusion pump contains software, provide a detailed description of the software design,
including key elements, such as:
o A drug library or other dose error reduction mechanism;
o A real time clock (RTC);
o On-board memory;
o Pump log;
o Alarm handler; and
o Watchdog timer.
• You should describe any communication between your device and a hospital information
management system or another device.
• You should describe the user interface components of the pump, including keypads, control
menus, data entry screens, displays, indicator lights, alarms, auditory and tactile feedback,
infusion sets, cassettes, free-flow prevention mechanisms, tubing, latches, doors or other
components or accessories of the physical pump that may be manipulated.
• You should describe how you will market the device (e.g., sterile, single use, multi-patient use,
home use).
In addition to providing the descriptive information requested above, we recommend that you
provide a table comparing your device to a legally marketed predicate device. This table should
include the following:
• The indications for use for each device, including the patient population for which the devices
are intended (i.e., neonate, infant, pediatric, adult) and the intended use environment.
• The specifications for the devices, including but not limited to, flow accuracy specifications,
time to occlusion alarm, dimensions, weight, ingress protection, power, and units of delivery.
8
• The technological features of the devices.
You should describe how any differences in technology may affect the comparative safety and
performance of your device.
5. Safety Assurance Case

Infusion pump 510(k) submissions typically include changes or modifications to software,
materials, design, performance, or other features compared to the predicate. Accordingly, FDA
expects that most new devices (as well as most changed or modified devices 5) will have
differences in technological characteristics from the legally marketed predicate device even if
sharing the same intended use. Under section 513(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act), determinations of substantial equivalence will rely on whether the information
submitted, including appropriate clinical or scientific data, demonstrate that the new or modified
device is as safe and effective as the legally marketed predicate device and does not raise different
questions of safety and effectiveness in comparison to the predicate device.
In determining whether your new, changed, or modified infusion pump is substantially equivalent,
FDA recommends that you submit your information through a framework known as a safety
assurance case. 6
The safety assurance case (or safety case) consists of a structured argument, supported by a body
of valid scientific evidence that provides an organized case that the infusion pump adequately
addresses hazards associated with its intended use within its environment of use. The argument
should be commensurate with the potential risk posed by the infusion pump, the complexity of the
infusion pump, and the familiarity with the identified risks and mitigation measures.
5
Based on FDA’s analysis of these devices, FDA expects that most changes or modifications to infusion pumps
could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the devices and would therefore require submission of a new
510(k). See 21 CFR 807.81(a)(3). Note that a change to the intended use or technology of a 510(k)-cleared device
may render the device not substantially equivalent (NSE) to a legally marketed predicate. For detailed information
about substantial equivalence and 510(k) submissions, refer to the FDA guidance entitled, The 510(k) Program:
Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications [510(k)]
(http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/.../UCM284443.pdf). Any such device may thus be a class III
device and require a premarket approval application (PMA), unless the device is reclassified under section 513 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
6
For more information about assurance case reports, see, for example: Graydon, P., J. Knight, and E. Strunk,
“Assurance Based Development of Critical Systems,” Proc. of 37th Annual International Conference on Dependable
Systems and Networks, Edinburgh, U.K., 2007; Kelly, T., Arguing Safety — A Systematic Approach to Managing
Safety Cases, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of York, U.K., 1998; Kelly, T., “Reviewing Assurance Arguments - A
Step-by-Step Approach,” Proc. of Workshop on Assurance Cases for Security - The Metrics Challenge, Dependable
Systems and Networks, July 2007; Kelly, Tim, and J. McDermid, “Safety Case Patterns – Reusing Successful
Arguments,” Proc. of IEE Colloquium on Understanding Patterns and Their Application to System Engineering,
London, Apr. 1998; Weinstock, Charles B. and Goodenough, John B., “Towards an Assurance Case Practice for
Medical Devices,” Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, October 2009; Hawkins, Richard, et. al., A New
Approach to Creating Clear Safety Arguments, Safety-critical Systems Symposium, Southampton, UK, February
2011; UK Ministry of Defence, Defence Standard 00-56, Safety Management Requirements for Defence Systems –
Part 1 and Part 2, June 2007.
9
Safety cases are device specific and depend on manufacturer-specified design requirements, 7
associated hazards, design specifications, and other design control documentation. For this reason,
any newly developed device should have its own unique safety case. If you are submitting a
510(k) for modifications to a legally marketed infusion pump for which no safety case exists, you
should develop and submit a safety case for your infusion pump.
Safety assurance cases are best developed in parallel with the development of the device.
Constructing your safety case in concert with the device will not only allow for better safety
controls, claims, arguments, and evidence, it may reduce the costs of retrospective mitigations if it
is determined that a finished design is not adequately safe.
You are encouraged to use previously developed high-level safety case structures, or patterns, for
infusion pumps. Past safety assurance cases are useful as examples and may provide a basis for a
development framework. However, you should ensure that any previous cases used are
applicable to the system being developed.
To maximize the benefit of the safety case, you should maintain and refine your safety case
throughout the life of the infusion pump. During development, maintenance, and refinement of
your safety case, you should address the full lifecycle of the infusion pump within your safety
case.
FDA is not prescribing the formatting or presentation style used to develop your safety case. The
recommendations contained in this guidance document are intended to provide assistance and
facilitate the development and documentation of the safety case.
Section 5A provides guidance on the development of the safety case and Section 5B – Section 5F
provide guidance on elements that will make up the content of the safety case.
A. General Considerations for Safety Case Development
The three main elements of a safety assurance case are:
1. Claim: Statement about a property of the system or some subsystem.
2. Argument: Links the evidence to the claim. Arguments can be deterministic,

probabilistic, or qualitative. The argument describes what is being proved or
established, identify the items of evidence you are appealing to, and the reasoning
(inference, rationale) that the evidence is adequate to satisfy the claim. Arguments
may also introduce sub-claims or assumptions which require further exposition. In
addition to demonstrating that the evidence is adequate to satisfy the claim, the
argument should also address the confidence in the sufficiency of the evidence.
7
Throughout this guidance document, the term “design requirement” is used consistent with 21 CFR Part 820
Subpart C.
10
3. Evidence: Information that demonstrates the validity of the argument. This can
include facts (e.g., based on observations or established scientific principles),
analysis, research conclusions, test data, and expert opinions.
These elements of a safety case provide an argument that hazards caused by the device have been
adequately addressed. This is accomplished through a thorough analysis of hazards and
implementation of adequate controls to address the hazards.
Within a single safety case, there will be multiple layers of claims and arguments, with increasing
levels of specificity as the safety case approaches the evidence level. Your safety case should
make a claim about the safety of your infusion pump. The safety case for a specific infusion
pump should incorporate the following:
• The persons for whose use the device is represented or intended; and
• The conditions of use for the device, including conditions of use prescribed,
recommended, or suggested in the labeling or advertising of the device, and other intended
conditions of use.
The safety case should then progress to establishing that causes of the device hazards are
adequately addressed within its context of use and demonstrate through evidence the effective
implementation of the hazard mitigations.
The following recommendations are based on our experience reviewing safety cases.
• A separate argument structure demonstrating the completeness of the hazard analysis

process, including techniques, procedures and results to assure that hazards present within
the safety case are accurate and complete. This concept is often referred to as a confidence
case.
• Depending on the complexity of the infusion pump, it is useful to provide specific

argument structures for certain domains, such as software, human factors and reliability.
• Arguments should include justification for the selection of acceptability criteria for safety
controls. These can be integrated into the safety case directly.
• A traceability analysis is useful in demonstrating that all identified hazardous situations

have at least one corresponding control and that all controls have been verified and
validated in the final device design.
• There are commonly used safety case formats. If you elect to submit a safety case using
your own format, we recommend that you provide an executive summary to assist the
FDA in navigating your safety case.
• FDA review of safety cases includes the use of postmarket data to confirm the validity of
safety case arguments. You may find it useful to conduct a similar exercise during your
own internal review.
11
• Manufacturers have benefited from early interaction with FDA on development of their
safety case. FDA feedback may be obtained through the pre-submission process. Please
refer to the FDA’s guidance, Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The
Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with FDA Staff Guidance
(http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Guidanc
eDocuments/UCM311176.pdf).
B. Hazard Analysis
The objective of the hazard analysis is to identify hazards and potential causes of the hazards.
Specifically, the objective is to identify circumstances in which users or patients are exposed to a
potential source of harm.
FDA has identified infusion pump system hazards, as shown in Table 2. Your safety case should
provide an argument demonstrating that causes of these system hazards have been adequately
addressed for your device.
Table 2 – Infusion Pump System Hazards
Infusion Pump System Hazards System Hazard Definitions

Infusion Delivery Error Intended medication selected and delivery attempted, but
failure to deliver within the right time, dose, volume,
patient, or anatomical or physiologic site specifications.
This can include over-delivery, under-delivery or delay
in delivery situations.
Incorrect Therapy Failure to select or deliver the intended medication
because the wrong substance was selected for delivery.
Biological/Chemical Contamination Unintended contact with biological or chemical
substance, or unintended patient or provider physiologic
response to intended biological or chemical substance.
Traumatic Injury Burns, cuts, abrasions, air embolisms, electric shock, etc.
In developing your safety case, you should provide a hazard analysis for your infusion pump to
identify the causes of the system hazards. All hazards should be evaluated within the context of
the persons for whose use the device is represented or intended and the conditions of use for the
device, including conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling or
advertising of the device, and other intended conditions of use.
When identifying hazards, you should consider hazards occurring from the following:
• Systematic and random failures;

• Failures due to normal or abnormal use during operational use, including sequences of use
resulting in failure;
• Predictable misuse;
• Common cause failures;
• Failures caused by system, sub-system, or component interactions;
• Operating environment;
• Energy sources (e.g., mechanical, electrical, magnetic, thermal);
12
• Exposure to chemical or biological substances;
• Intentional and unintentional security breaches;
• Human factors;
• Storage and transport; and
• Maintenance.
In addition to utilization of hazard analysis techniques, such as those identified in ISO 14971
(e.g., fault tree analysis, preliminary hazards analysis, hazards and operability studies, hazard
analysis and critical control point, failure modes and effects analysis), you should consider
information available to you on similar infusion pumps as part of your hazard analysis, including
published literature, customer complaints, Medical Device Reports (MDR), recall databases, user
feedback, and other relevant sources.
In Tables 3-10, FDA has provided examples of hazards and causes that may result in the
occurrence of a hazardous situation. The purpose of FDA identifying specific hazardous
situations and their causes is to provide an example framework for how to conduct your own
analysis. You should conduct a thorough analysis for your infusion pump to identify any
additional hazardous situations for your device and the foreseeable sequences of events that may
result in any of the hazardous situations. Individual pump designs, environmental conditions, and
conditions of use for the device will dictate what hazards should be identified and mitigated.
FDA recommends that the hazard analysis include a process for identifying initiating events and
sequences of events for each hazardous situation throughout all aspects of device use (e.g., drug
loading, priming, programming, infusion).
Sources of hazardous situations:

• Operational (Table 3)
• Environmental (Table 4)
• Electrical (Table 5)
• Hardware (Table 6)
• Software (Table 7)
• Mechanical (Table 8)
• Biological and Chemical (Table 9)
• Use (Table 10)
Table 3 – Operational Sources

Hazard Potential Causes
Air in Infusion Line Incorrect/incomplete priming processes
Broken, loose, or unsealed delivery path
The pump is unable to release gas or air
The pump is set up with an incompatible infusion set
Occlusion Delivery path obstructed, e.g., kinked tubes
Chemical precipitation inside the delivery path
Bolus occurring after an occlusion
Uncontrolled Flow of Infusate (e.g. Valves in the delivery path are broken
free flow) The pump is positioned much higher than the infusion
site, causing unintentional drug flow
The delivery path is damaged, creating a vent on the path
that allows unintentional gravity flow
Retrograde Flow of Infusate (e.g. The pump is positioned much lower than the infusion
13
Reverse Flow) site, causing the pump to siphon
The delivery path is damaged, creating a vent on the path
that diverts an intentional drug flow from reaching the
user
Excessive bolus administration due The bolus history records are corrupted, making the user
to too many bolus requests from unable to track previously received boluses
the user
The programmed bolus dose is Algorithmic errors
delivered unevenly over its
The pump motor does not operate as intended
specified duration
Infusate Leakage Loose connection between parts of the delivery path
Broken drug reservoir

The actual flow rate does not Air pressure within the pump is much lower than the
match the programmed infusion ambient air pressure
rate Pumping mechanism out of calibration
The drug reservoir is detached The drug reservoir compartment is broken or opened
during normal pump use
Table 4 – Environmental Sources

Failure to operate / Pump Temperature / Humidity / Air pressure too high or too
malfunction low
The pump is exposed to pathogens, Contamination due to spillage / exposure to toxins
allergens, or other hazardous Battery leak
substances
Disruption/malfunction of pump Electromagnetic interference (EMI) related to:
due to electromagnetic interference - Radiofrequency (RF) emitters, e.g., mobile radios,
(EMI) cellular telephone
- Electrostatic discharge (ESD)
- Conducted RF, e.g., via power line
- Poor AC power quality, e.g., voltage surges or sags.
Magnetic fields: e.g., electric motors, power lines
Inadequate shielding, filtering, or other electromagnetic

compatibility (EMC) design or mitigation
Table 5 – Electrical Sources

Overheating Incorrect or loose interconnections between devices
Supply processor charge too high
Insufficient cooling/faulty heat sink
Charge Error Battery could not be charged

AC supply exceeds limits
Battery voltage exceeds limits
Supply Voltage Error Battery depleted
Voltage conversion failed
Battery Failure Battery voltage too low
Battery depleted
Battery overcharged
Leakage Current too high Inadequate shielding
14
Short circuit
Circuit failure Short circuit
High impedance
Low impedance
Electrically conductive, corrosive fluid ingress
Electromagnetic compatibility Electromagnetic interference (EMI) [** see list in table 4]
Table 6 – Hardware Sources

System failure Malfunctioning component
Synchronization error between pump components
Watchdog failure
Reliability specification not met
Network error Network congestion
Communication problem
Loss of (wireless) signal
Pump not compatible with networked / integrated device
Memory failure Attempted write to memory failed
Critical value data integrity error
False watchdog interrupt
False alarm Device or sensor contaminated
Device or sensor out of calibration
Failure to alarm Sensor failure
Incorrect dose value entered Key de-bounce prevention failed
Table 7 – Software Sources

Data error Failure to backup
Data store/retrieval error
Software runtime error Buffer overflow/underflow
Null pointer dereference
Memory leak
Uninitialized variable
Incorrect dynamic libraries
System malfunction Software runtime error
Communication error
Corrupted infusion commands Data store/retrieval error
Pump could not be silenced Alarm priority set incorrectly
Incorrect software version Software updates not installed
Incorrect drug library loaded
Incorrect version installed
Failure to alarm / False alarm Sensor failure
Alarm priority set incorrectly
Incorrect settings of alarm thresholds
Table 8 – Mechanical Sources

Unable to set dose, start/ stop/ reset Broken part (e.g., broken keypad)
pump, silence alarm
Incorrect dose value entered Key stuck / depressed
15
Failure to alarm Speaker / Audio unit failure
Stress from various sources: random impacts (e.g.,
dropped device), vibration, shear, fatigue, rupture,
fracture, wear, and temperature or force induced
Physical Damage to pump deformation
Fluid ingress
Damage to power cord
Pump stops infusion Pump motor fails

Pump unable to stroke
Table 9 – Biological and Chemical Sources

The pump is exposed to pathogens, Inadequate device cleaning
allergens, or other infectious Device contaminated by blood/leaking fluid
substances Failure to flush
The pump is connected to non-sterile infusion sets or
reservoir
Packaging of the pump is damaged prior to its use
Infusion site infection The user is local skin reaction to the infusion set or
infusion set adhesive
The user fails to rotate infusion sites
Chemical precipitation inside the Inadequate device cleaning
delivery path
Drug not compatible with device materials
Physical damage to pump Inadequate device cleaning or disinfection

Damage to device materials from adsorption of the drug
Loss of drug potency Adsorption of drug to device materials due to
incompatible device materials
Temperatures exceeds drug specifications
Toxicity Materials of construction are not biocompatible
Drug leaches chemicals from device
Presence of natural rubber latex
Table 10 – Use Sources

User does not understand how to User interface design is confusing
initiate pump operation
User is confused by pump operation
Note: Can apply to lay users
particularly The instructions for use are insufficient or lacking
The training was insufficient or lacking
The pump is programmed Secondary infusion not properly initiated by the user
incorrectly The instructions for use are confusing for the user
The user enters incorrect configuration parameters (e.g.,
blood glucose reading, drug concentration)
The user accidentally touches the pump console, presses
the wrong key, or double-strikes a key, changing or
erroneously programming pump settings
Infusion stopped prematurely The user forgets to resume the pump after pausing it
User is unaware of battery capacity and does not notice
its low status
The user fails to detect or Background noise or nuisance alarms cause user to fail to
understand pump notifications detect or to ignore them
16
The user muffles the pump’s speaker or other audio
output, either intentionally or unintentionally
Wrong medication or User sets up pump with incorrect medication or incorrect
concentration is delivered concentration
Medication is correct but user enters into pump the
incorrect concentration or delivery rate
Physical set up, such as routing of User believes infusion is occurring but it is not
tubing or selection of appropriate User is required to perform programming task sequences
tubing set is incorrect beyond user expectations or capabilities
User is confused about pump set-up, troubleshooting, or
operation tasks
Physical set-up of pump components is challenging for
the user
User “works around” or Software configuration, possibly user-defined
“bypasses” software limits on configuration, is not applicable to current treatment and
drug/dose parameters. user is compelled to “work around” or “bypass” it
“Work around” or “bypass” requirements are required so
often the user does not attend to displayed limits
User ignores or misinterprets Warnings are displayed so often that user ignores them
software-generated “warnings”
Warning statements are not sufficiently informative,
meaningful or appropriate for the condition and user does
not understand how to respond
User misinterprets or Pump operates differently than expected
misunderstands pump status or Pump operational mode indications are absent or not
operational mode communicated effectively
Display characters not distinguishable and user cannot
read them correctly or at all
The pump is disconnected The user’s actions cause the pump to be disconnected
accidentally from the patient or the power supply
Children, pets, pests or vermin tamper with or damage
pump components
Excessive bolus administration due The user forgets previously received boluses or does not
to too many bolus requests from wait long enough for previous bolus to take full effect
the user
(Drug) Leakage The user disconnects the pump incorrectly
Children, pets, pests or vermin tamper with or damage

pump components
The drug reservoir is detached The user’s actions cause the reservoir to be disconnected
during normal pump use
Tampering (for example, by a Unauthorized tampering of pump settings
patient during home use to adjust
drug delivery) Panel/door opened during infusion
Infusion started when door open
C. Performance Testing
Performance testing to verify/validate the pump design should assure that the related safety case
claims are satisfied. This includes specific attention to statistical elements (hypotheses, analyses,
sample size and sampling, power), controls, minimization of bias, test parameters (endpoints),
follow-up, and evaluation criteria.
This performance testing should be conducted with the complete infusion pump system intended
to be used with your device. Each available configuration of the system should be verified and
17
validated. If representative configurations are used for verification or validation activities, you
should describe how the collected data are relevant to configurations that have not been subject to
the verification or validation activities.
The amount and type of evidence required to support the indications for use and technology for a
particular infusion pump varies. You should identify all of the evidence that you rely on to
support your claims of safety and effectiveness and to provide confidence that the evidence
selected is complete.
The premarket notification (510(k)) should include the following information for all design
verification performance testing activities submitted in support of your safety case:
1. A description of the device design requirement being verified, including why it is

essential to the proper functioning of the device;
2. A description of the unit under test and how it relates to the final, finished device;
3. The justification for the use of prototype or “production equivalent” devices or

components during the design verification activity, if applicable;
4. An explicit statement of the acceptance criteria for the verification activity;
5. A detailed description of the verification method, including drawings and descriptions

of the test apparatus where appropriate;
6. An explanation of how the verification test set up simulates actual clinical use
conditions, if applicable;
7. The results of the verification activity;
8. An analysis of the verification activity results; and
9. An explicit statement of any conclusions drawn from the verification activity.
The premarket notification should characterize the user population(s), use environment(s), and
include the following information for all design validation performance testing activities:
1. A description of the design requirement implemented to address a user need or

intended use, which is being validated;
2. A description of the unit used during the design validation activity and how it relates
to the final, finished product;
3. The justification for the use of prototype or “production equivalent” devices during the
design validation activity, if applicable;
4. A detailed explanation of how the validation activity simulates actual clinical and/or
home use (or a description of the actual use conditions);
18
5. An explicit statement of the acceptance criteria for the validation activity;
6. The design validation method/protocol used;
7. The results of the design validation activity;
8. An analysis of the design validation activity results; and
9. An explicit statement of any conclusions drawn from the design validation activity.
Use of Standards
We encourage you to take advantage of any FDA-recognized standards and provide
statements or declarations of conformity, as described in the FDA’s guidance, Use of
Standards in Substantial Equivalence Determinations
m073752.htm). 8
References to standards within this guidance document do not mean that the standards must
be complied with, or that they necessarily apply to your specific device. Your safety
assurance case should address the appropriateness of any standard to support clearance of
your infusion pump.
The safety case does not have to follow a prescribed or singular format. Similarly, ISO 14971
states that the risk management file can be in any format. Therefore, we encourage you to
leverage your existing risk management activities to avoid duplication in the development and
documentation of your safety case.
Operational Safety
Infusion Delivery Accuracy
Infusion delivery accuracy specifications should be appropriate for the intended use of the
device and the testing should reflect the conditions of use for the device. The safety case
should include an argument for how the infusion delivery accuracy specifications are
appropriate within the context of the indications for use, including the therapeutic range of
the fluids intended to be infused by the system, where specific fluids are indicated. When
developing and verifying the accuracy specifications, you should consider the flow rates
and duration of time over which the accuracy specification is defined.
Each available configuration of the system should be tested, though testing of

representative configurations may also be acceptable. Where representative tests are
provided, you should describe how the collected data are relevant to the untested
configurations. In determining if a configuration is representative, you should identify the
characteristics of your device that could affect the infusion delivery accuracy. Some
examples of characteristics that should be considered include:
• Infusion sets: Length, diameter, number and type of flow restriction devices on the set,
number and relative location of access points.
8
For more information on FDA recognized consensus standards, see
www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/search.cfm.
19
• Drug reservoir: Size, position relative to pump.
• Pump model/configurations: Flow rate limits, volume limits.
For a pump intended to maintain a constant set flow rate per your specifications, the data
should demonstrate that the device can maintain a set flow rate over the complete course
of the infusion within the designated accuracy. The testing should demonstrate adherence
to specifications at the limits of the operational parameters.
For a pump that does not maintain a constant flow rate, test results should be used to
generate a representative flow profile. This representative flow profile should be included
in the device labeling. Testing should include an assessment of infusion delivery accuracy
at the minimum, intermediate, and maximum flow rates. You should provide a
justification for choice of intermediate flow rate.
For pumps that are capable of bolus delivery, test results should demonstrate that the
accuracy of the bolus delivery is within specification. Testing should be representative of
how bolus delivery will occur in use and should include an assessment of bolus accuracy
at the minimum and maximum bolus dose.
Testing should also demonstrate that the device can maintain the specified flow
characteristics despite changes in ambient temperature, fluid temperature, pressure (e.g.,
head-height, backpressure, atmospheric pressure), or fluid viscosity, which would
reasonably be expected to be encountered according to the intended use of the device. The
effects of these factors should be discussed quantitatively in the labeling so that the user is
made aware.
Reliability Analysis
Reliability includes component and system level analyses. You should provide an
analysis of your infusion pump system reliability. The analysis should include a
description of your system’s reliability specification and the reliability activities
completed to verify and validate that the specification has been met (e.g., design analysis,
test plans, and test reports). As part of the safety assurance case, the analyses and
associated activities may take the form of claims, arguments, or evidence.
Environmental Safety
Applicable Standards
We recommend that your device meet the applicable environmental safety standards. In
your 510(k) submission, you should present data or documentation demonstrating that
your device meets the applicable safety standards. For the electromagnetic compatibility
(EMC) aspects of environmental safety, see below.
General Considerations
The environmental standards that you use for your particular infusion pump should be
appropriate for the environments of intended use. For example, environmental hazards for
a home use pump might be different from the hazards for a pump intended for use in a
healthcare facility. For this reason, we recommend that you comprehensively characterize
the range of potential environmental hazards for your infusion pump and establish
appropriate strategies to control the hazards.
20
Your safety assurance case should identify and mitigate environmental hazards. You
should characterize the use environment and establish the measures to support the use of
your infusion pump within its environment.
Electrical Equipment Safety

We recommend that your device meet the applicable standards in ANSI/AAMI ES60601-
1:2012, entitled “Medical electrical equipment – Part I: General requirements for basic
safety and essential performance.” In your 510(k) submission, you should present data or
documentation demonstrating that your device meets the applicable standards.
We recommend that mains-powered devices intended for home use should safely function
without a protective earth ground as defined in ANSI/AAMI ES60601-1:2012, definition
3.14, class II. See also the FDA’s guidance, Design Considerations for Devices Intended
for Home Use
Electromagnetic Compatibility
If your infusion pump contains any electrical components, you should include in your
510(k) submission information demonstrating the EMC of the device in its intended use
environments. EMC is the ability of a device to operate properly in its intended
environment of use (immunity) without introducing harmful electromagnetic disturbances
into that environment (emissions). We recommend that your infusion pump be designed
and tested for EMC in reference to IEC 60601-1-2:2014, entitled “Medical electrical
equipment – General requirements for basic safety and essential performance – Collateral
standard: Electromagnetic disturbances – Requirements and tests,” 9 or the IEC 60601-1-
2:2007, entitled “Medical electrical equipment – General requirements for basic safety and
essential performance – collateral standard: Electromagnetic Compatibility –
Requirements and tests.” 10 Alternatively the ANSI/AAMI/IEC versions of these standards
can be referenced. In addition to evidence of conformity with one of these applicable
standards, you should provide summary information in your premarket submission to
FDA describing the following:
• the testing that was performed and how this was done;
• the device functions and modes that were tested;
• the device specific pass/fail criteria used, including the performance that was
determined to be Essential Performance;
• reference standards and any deviations or allowances that were taken;
• any device modifications needed to pass the testing; and
• appropriate labeling.
Device manufacturers should consider appropriate levels of testing in accordance with the
risks present in the intended use environments. Depending upon the use environment, the
9
FDA’s recognition of the 2014 version of the IEC 60601-1-2 is available at
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/detail.cfm?standard__identification_no=32631.
Please note that the 2014 version of the IEC 60601-1-2 standard includes a transition period through April 2, 2017 as
noted in FDA’s recognition.
10
FDA’s recognition of the 2007 version of the IEC 60601-1-2 is available at
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/detail.cfm?standard__identification_no=32628.
21
immunity test levels might need to be raised, particularly if the testing is performed in
reference to the general immunity testing specified in the IEC and ANSI/AAMI/IEC
60601-1-2:2007 standard. 11
You should also assess the EMC of your device with common sources of disturbance to
electrically powered medical devices that could be in the use location(s) and might
interfere with the performance of the medical device. These sources can include large
electric motors, nearby radio and TV transmitters, radar, anti-theft systems (including tag
deactivators), stereo speakers, and radio frequency identification (RFID).
Radio Frequency Wireless Technology

If your submission includes radio frequency (RF) technologies, you should include in your
510(k) submission a complete description of the RF use. Even when applications of RF
wireless technologies comply with applicable technology standards and Federal
Communications Commission rules, medical device safety and effectiveness concerns can
exist. For detailed information about possible hazards, refer to the FDA guidance on
radio-frequency wireless technology, Radio-Frequency Wireless Technology in Medical
Devices
(http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/uc
m077210.htm). Particular points you should address in your 510(k) include quality of
service needed, data integrity, coexistence, security, and EMC. Due to the increased use
of RF wireless technology that operates in the same frequency range, you should address
RF wireless coexistence via testing with other common applications of RF wireless
technology that can be expected to be used in the environment of use. The testing should
also address the ability of two or more of your infusion devices to operate wirelessly in
proximity.
Hardware Safety
We recommend that your device meet the hardware safety standards of IEC 60601-1. In
your 510(k) submission, you should present data or documentation demonstrating that
your device meets the hardware safety standards.
Software Safety
Applicable FDA Guidances and Standards
Please refer to the FDA’s Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for
Software Contained in Medical Devices
(http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocument
s/ucm089543.htm), for a discussion of the software documentation that you should
provide in the 510(k) submission. We generally consider infusion pumps to be a “Major”
level of concern for the purposes of software review.
If the device includes off-the-shelf software, you should provide the additional
information as recommended in the FDA’s Guidance for Industry, FDA Reviewers and
11
Because the levels of electromagnetic disturbance in, for example, the home healthcare environment can exceed
the default test levels for the hospital environment that are specified in IEC and ANSI/AAMI/IEC 60601-1-2:2007, if
your device is specified for home use or use in transport, you should design your device to be immune to the
disturbance levels that can be expected in these environments.
22
Compliance on Off-the-Shelf Software Use in Medical Devices
s/ucm073778.htm).
You should provide a static analysis of all software in your infusion pump system.
When providing a list of unresolved anomalies, you should include the following
information for each unresolved anomaly:
• A description of the anomaly from a symptom point of view and how it is

manifested.
• The location in the code where the anomaly occurs.
• A description of how to fix the anomalous code.
• A search of the software source code for other possible instances of the anomaly.
For example, if the problem was an off-by-one error in an array, provide evidence
that all arrays were checked for off-by-one errors.
• Provide evidence that a coupling analysis was performed to identify all parts of the
software that accessed the anomalous code and that no problems would arise
because of accessing this anomalous code.
• Provide an explanation for why the anomaly could not result in harm if it occurs. If
justification is provided for not correcting the anomaly, you should provide any
plans or timeframes for correcting the problem.
Information Security
We recommend that you describe how your software addresses information security as
it relates to safety and effectiveness. Information security is the process of preventing
the modification, misuse or denial of use, or the unauthorized use of information that
is stored, accessed or transferred from your device to an external recipient. We
recommend that your 510(k) include documentation demonstrating that your device
design addresses the following four components of information security described
below: Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, and Accountability (CIAA). Please
refer to FDA’s guidance addressing cyber security in medical devices, Content of
Premarket Submission for Management of Cybersecurity in Medical Devices
(http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Guid
anceDocuments/UCM356190.pdf).
• Confidentiality means data, information, or system structures are accessible only to

authorized persons, entities and processes at authorized times and in the authorized
manner, thereby helping ensure data and system security. (The assurance that no
unauthorized users have access to the information.)
• Integrity means data and information are accurate and complete and have not been
improperly modified.
• Availability means data information and information systems are accessible and
usable on a timely basis in the required manner. (The assurance that the information
will be available when needed.)
23
• Accountability means an authorized user is identified and authenticated before access.
Network
If your infusion pump is physically or wirelessly networked (e.g., hospital information
system) you should include information in your 510(k) describing the purpose of allowing
networked access to your infusion pump. Within your safety case, you should identify
how the networked connection / capability could cause the manifestation of an infusion
pump system hazard (e.g. infusion delivery error, incorrect therapy, contamination, or
traumatic injury) and provide the supporting argument for how these are adequately
addressed.
Dosing Algorithms
For infusion pumps that contain algorithms intended to provide dosing recommendations,
we recommend that you include the following information in your 510(k) submission:
• The dosing algorithms used within your device.
• For each algorithm identified, you should include the algorithm in symbolic form,
define all parameters in each algorithm and identify what parameters can be modified
by the end-user.
• For each algorithm identified, you should include clinical data or other justification
(e.g., via scientific literature) for why you believe your algorithm is appropriate for
your intended patient population.
• Each algorithm should be verified and validated in your software documentation to

show that the calculations made by the dose calculator are correct and this data should
be included in your submission.
Mechanical Safety
We recommend that your device meet the mechanical safety standards of IEC 60601-1.
You should consider sources of mechanical forces that may be exerted on the infusion
pump or that the infusion pump may exert on other objects that could result in a hazardous
situation. The evidence that you provide should demonstrate that the sources of the
mechanical hazards are controlled and that the controls are effective.
Biological Safety
Biocompatibility
Applicable FDA Guidance
For information regarding biocompatibility, see Use of International Standard ISO-10993,
'Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices Part 1: Evaluation and Testing' (Replaces
#G87-1 #8294) (blue book memo)
24
s/ucm080735.htm). 12
Your infusion pump might be made of materials that have been well characterized
chemically and physically in the published literature and have a long history of safe use.
We recommend that if you consider the tests suggested in the referenced biocompatibility
guidance document or material characterization testing discussed below to not be
applicable or appropriate, you should provide adequate justification for omission of these
tests. In such situations, FDA recommends documenting the use of a particular material in
a legally marketed predicate device or a legally marketed device with comparable patient
exposure in order to support omission of the recommended tests.
To make a biological safety argument based on equivalence to a predicate, you should

demonstrate that the route(s) of administration, materials of construction / processing and
post manufacturing residuals are the same as the referenced predicate device intended for
similar intended use and population.
Infusion pumps include components that contact the patient or user. You should evaluate
the biocompatibility of materials in the components that have direct or indirect contact
with the patient or user, and report the results in your 510(k) submission.
You should provide a chemical and particulate characterization on the final, finished, fluid
contacting device components demonstrating that risk of harm from device-related
residues is reasonably low. For the assessment, we recommend the following:
• For device-related chemical residual characterization, the Agency recommends

performing a leachables and extractables (L&E) study using representative
solvents based on the spectrum of polarity for sample preparation as it may not be
practical to use all fluids which may interact with the fluid contacting pump
surface. Sample preparation for the L&E study should be based on the worst case
scenario, i.e., exhaustive extraction conditions. Qualitative and quantitative
estimation of device-related residuals is recommended using an applicable library
of reference chemicals. A detailed study report showing sample preparation,
analytical methods, a justification for specific solvents and extraction conditions
used in chemical characterization, and a quantitative extraction profile would be
recommended for device-related chemical residual evaluation. For the L&E study,
we recommend that you consider ISO 10993-18 Biological evaluation of medical
devices — Part 18: Chemical characterization of materials, 2005.
• For device-related particulate evaluation, you should follow current USP <788>
Particulate Matter in Injections. FDA considers USP <788> to be limited to
evaluation of micron particles.
12
FDA has issued draft guidance on use of ISO 10993 in testing medical devices for biocompatibility, Use of
International Standard ISO 10993, Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices Part 1: Evaluation and Testing
(http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM348890.
pdf). When finalized, this guidance will represent FDA’s current thinking on this topic and will supersede the Blue
Book Memorandum cited above.
25
• Device-related residual characterization alone may not provide appropriate
information for risk of harm from device-related residues. The Agency
recommends a comprehensive risk assessment of the device-related residuals based
on route of exposure, toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics, and allowable limits in
the intended population proposed for the new device.
Sterilization
Applicable FDA Guidance
You should provide the appropriate documentation recommended by the FDA’s, Updated
510(k) Sterility Review Guidance K90-1
s/ucm072783.htm).
Reuse
Infusion pumps and accessories intended for multiple patient reuse should include
instructions for cleaning and disinfecting the device between uses in the device labeling.
Also, where appropriate, consider specifying in your submission and labeling the number
of times the device can be reused, with supporting information (see Shelf Life, below).
If cleaning or high-level disinfection of the device is recommended in the labeling, you

should provide validation to demonstrate that such cleaning or high-level disinfection
procedures are adequate. You should also demonstrate that after cleaning or high-level
disinfection, the device continues to perform as intended.
Numerous infusion pumps are used in the home environment. If your pump is indicated
for home use, you should specify in the labeling the types of cleaning agents/products that
are readily available to the average home-based user along with instruction for cleaning
the device. Validation of these procedures should be provided in your submission.
In order to demonstrate that your device meets the performance specifications after
cleaning or disinfection, you should provide bench data before and after an appropriate
number of cleaning or disinfection cycles per your labeling. FDA has developed draft
guidance that discusses labeling a device with cleaning or disinfection methods,
Processing/Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods
and Labeling
s/ucm252999.htm). When finalized, this guidance will represent FDA’s current thinking
on this topic.
Shelf Life
If your particular infusion pump contains sterile components or materials that could
degrade over time, we recommend that you include a shelf life on the packaging.
We recommend that you provide data to demonstrate that the sterility and performance of
your particular infusion pump are maintained throughout any specified shelf life. If
accelerated test methods are utilized, you should provide information validating that the
test methods accurately simulate real-time conditions for your device. For additional
information, please see the FDA’s guidance, Shelf Life of Medical Devices
26
Drug / Biological Product Stability and Compatibility

If your infusion pump is indicated to deliver specific types of drugs or biological products,
you should verify and validate that your infusion pump system does not adversely affect
the drug or biological products being delivered by your infusion pump and that these
products do not adversely affect your infusion pump system. 13
As noted in the labeling recommendations of this document, you should identify the
particular drugs or biological products that you have evaluated for use with your device.
Use Safety
Applicable FDA Guidance and Standards
For more information regarding use safety, see FDA’s guidance, Design Considerations
for Devices Intended for Home Use
In addition, FDA has issued draft guidance on this topic, Applying Human Factors and
Usability Engineering to Optimize Medical Device Design
s/ucm259748.htm). When finalized, this guidance will represent FDA’s current thinking
on this topic.
We encourage the use of the following standards, as recognized by FDA:

• AAMI ANSI HE75 Design of Medical Devices; and
• IEC 62366, Medical devices - Application of usability engineering to medical
devices. (General).
Reports of device-related incidents and recalls have shown that patterns of use errors
resulting from flaws in the design of the pump’s user interface have led to patient harm.
The term user interface denotes all components of the pump with which the user interacts,
for example:
• Keypads and/or control mechanisms;

• Feedback mechanisms (auditory alarms, visual alarms, indicators, and other
messages to users);
• Design of graphical user interface, including responses to user actions, such as
auditory and visual feedback, and changes in pump operation or programming; and
• Directions for use.
13
For additional information on drug or biological product stability, see FDA’s guidance documents on the CDER
webpage (http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm064979.htm) or
CBER webpage
(http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm).
27
Use hazards associated with use of pumps are a unique form of hazard in that they can
exist even when a pump operates in accordance with its specifications. These hazards
generally do not involve failures due to faulty mechanical, electrical or software
components that are previously known or reasonably anticipated, but rather, arise
specifically from interaction with a human operator.
Additional considerations to address in your hazards analysis for human factor/usability

issues should include:
• Operator (user) interface component features and operation including overall logic
of operation (interaction between the user and the device components and user
interfaces);
• Arrangement of user interface components for users’ physical interactions with the
device;
• Potential errors associated with atypical user actions or technique;
• Legibility of visual information, including device labels and displays;
• Audibility of aural information, including different alarm tones;
• Potential difficulties associated with each possible setting or input available to
operators;
• Potential errors associated with input, selection or modification of critical
treatment parameters;
• Potential errors associated with non-standard or unusual parameter settings or
default values;
• Data transfer and communication inaccuracies;
• Potential confusion due to non-standard, unfamiliar or ambiguous conventions or
abbreviations; and
• Potential confusion due to non-standard, ambiguous, or inadequate alarm condition
or information messages.
Human Factors Validation Study Report

The submission should include a Human Factors Validation study report to confirm the
design of the product-user interface. For additional information on human factors design
optimization see the FDA’s Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff - Applying Human Factors and Usability Engineering to Optimize
Medical Device Design
s/ucm259748.htm).
Clinical Investigation
The safety assurance case report should include evidence to demonstrate that the
hazardous situation controls are effective. This may include an evaluation of the infusion
pump under conditions of actual clinical use, in addition to the simulated use studies.
During development of your safety assurance case report, you should consider your
device’s indications for use and technology. Appropriate evidence to validate the intended
use of the device should be included in the safety case report. Where information does not
exist to make sufficient safety arguments on the basis of simulated use studies alone (e.g.,
28
different technological characteristics as compared to the predicate device), FDA
recommends clinical investigation of the device.
FDA has determined that an infusion pump is a significant risk device, as defined in 21
CFR 812.3(m), and as such, any clinical investigation must therefore be conducted under
an approved investigational device exemption (IDE). 21 CFR 812.20(a). Sponsors of such
studies must not begin their clinical investigations until FDA has approved the IDE
application (21 CFR 812.20(a)(2) and 812.42), and the clinical investigation must comply
with the following:
• IDE requirements, 21 CFR Part 812 (21 CFR 812.2(a));
• Institutional review board (IRB) requirements, 21 CFR Part 56 (21 CFR Part 812,
Subpart D); and
• Informed consent requirements, 21 CFR Part 50 (21 CFR 812.100).
D. Labeling
Premarket notifications must include proposed labels, labeling, and advertisements sufficient
to describe the device, its intended use, and the directions for its use, as required by 21 CFR
807.87(e). Where applicable, photographs or drawings should be supplied. The following
suggestions are aimed at assisting you in preparing labels and labeling that satisfy the
requirements of 21 CFR Part 801.
We recommend that you provide clear instructions for use that delineate the technological
features of the specific device and how to use the device.
We recommend instructions for use be evaluated by representative users to ensure that critical
aspects of pump use and maintenance are clearly and completely communicated. The results
should be part of your 510(k) submission.
Directions for Use

As a prescription device, infusion pumps are not safe except under the supervision of a
practitioner licensed by law to direct the use of such device and therefore must include
certain information in the labeling for the practitioner to use the device safely and for the
purpose for which it is intended, as required by 21 CFR 801.109. Labeling must include
adequate information for the safe use of the device by health care professionals, including
indications, effects, routes, methods, frequency and duration of administration, and any
relevant hazards, contraindications, side effects and precautions, as required by 21 CFR
801.109.
In addition to the labeling requirements in 21 CFR 801.109, including the prescription

statement required under 21 CFR 801.109(b)(1), FDA recommends that the labeling contain
the following information:
• Indications for use, including:
o Identify the fluids or fluid types as supported by the submission;

29
o Use environment(s);
o Route(s) of administration for infusion;
o Indicate treatment population.
• Cleaning and disinfection instructions for reusable infusion pumps and accessories. If
the pump is used in the home, please identify cleaning and disinfection agents available
to the general public that are suitable for device reuse (cleaning and disinfection).
• Alarm limits and ranges.
• Default settings.
• A complete representation of the user interface, including detailed depiction of screens

and data fields and how they will be used to accomplish all clinical applications and
possible configurations of the pump.
• An identification of any dedicated administration set or the specifications and/or

specific models of infusion sets that are appropriate for use with this pump.
• Identify reservoir volume, selectable flow rates and profiles, and residual fluid volume
remaining after the infusion is complete.
• Describe any factors that may affect flow accuracy such as ambient temperature, fluid
temperature, pressure (e.g., head-height, backpressure, atmospheric pressure), fluid
viscosity, or changes in flow rate or bolus delivery (e.g., such as when titrating
medications).
• Define the accuracy specifications over the range of selectable flow rates and bolus
volumes. This may include information such as:
o Time period over which accuracy is specified;

o Time to reach steady-state flow accuracy; and
o Effect of infusion rate changes or bolus delivery on accuracy.
• Define the bolus delivery rate, if applicable.
• A description of the fluid(s) to be administered by the pump as indicated in the

statement of intended use found in the labeling of the device, with a listing of tested
products (e.g., blood products, enteral feedings and lipids, cytotoxic drugs or their
characteristics). In the warnings or contraindications section, please list known fluid
characteristics that are not compatible with the infusion pump.
• Comprehensive directions for preparation and use for all functions of the device.
• Describe a method or methods that can be used to confirm that the device is in
calibration for all relevant delivery features.
• Description of all alarm or information messages and recommended actions when

alarms or information messages are provided.
30
For infusion pumps containing a reservoir, container, or other components contacting
the drug or biological product being infused, include information regarding the stability
and compatibility of those fluids with your device. 14
• All recommendations for infusion pump use regarding the fluids should be consistent
with the FDA-approved labeling for the fluid products.
• Warning statements on your device regarding the safety of use during diagnostic
procedures, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), x-ray, computed tomography
(CT), or ultrasound.
• Labeling should include all recommended information related to EMC, including

reference to the appropriate standard, such as IEC 60601-1-2.
• For devices with RF wireless technology capabilities, the labeling should include
information about the exact RF wireless technology incorporated or able to be used
with your device. The information should contain specifics about the technology (e.g.,
IEEE 802.11 b), the frequency of operation and range, quality of service required for
the claimed functions, data integrity, recommended security measures for the RF
wireless technology (e.g., WPA2), coexistence and any limitations (e.g., distance
between RF devices, EMC limitations).
• If the pump is designed to be used by individuals with specific disabilities, those

disabilities should be described in the labeling.
Home Use Labeling

We recommend all infusion pump labeling specify the environment in which the pump is
intended to be used. Infusion pumps that are intended for home use should also include
instructions for use suitable for the lay user, who is to receive the device from or on the
order of a health care provider and use the device under the supervision of a licensed
practitioner. 15 These instructions for use should contain the information recommended in
the “Directions for Use” section above. Home care pumps should include the device
manufacturer’s toll free phone number for customer support on the device in the event the
device labeling is misplaced or lost. See also the FDA’s guidance Design Considerations for
Devices Intended for Home Use
(http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceD
ocuments/UCM331681.pdf).
See Section C. Performance Testing: Drug/Biological Product Stability and Compatibility.

14
As described elsewhere in the section “Directions for Use,” these infusion pumps are prescription devices under 21
15
CFR 801.109. See footnote 2 for a discussion of lay users.
31
E. Alarms
In response to a hazardous situation, a pump may issue an alarm. Each alarm should be
clearly indicated to the user. We recommend that your device meet the standards of IEC
60601-1-8: Medical electrical equipment – Part 1-8: General requirements for safety –
Collateral standard: Alarm systems. Use of alarms as a hazard control mechanism should be
justified in your safety assurance case. You should also address any risks of infusion delivery
error associated with false positive alarms and false negative alarms.
An alarm may be triggered due to one or more hazards, including, but not limited to:
• Occlusion (supply side and patient side);

• Air-in-line;
• Free flow / Improper flow of fluid;
• Depleted battery or No power;
• Defective battery;
• Low or Empty reservoir;
• No reservoir;
• Dose limit / Bolus limit exceeded;
• Panel unlocked / door open;
• Key pressed alarm;
• Power on self test (POST) failure – issued when one of the POST tests fails;
• ROM / RAM CRC test failure;
• Tone test failure;
• Pump mechanism failure;
• Watchdog alarm – issued when the watchdog timer expires;
• Overheating;
• Drug library mismatch; and
• Infusion set not loaded properly.
F. Safety Control Mechanisms

An infusion pump may have safety control mechanisms to prevent or detect hazardous
situations. These may include, but are not limited to:
1. Power on self test (POST) checks – performed during pump startup or initialization;
2. Battery test;
3. Stuck key test;
4. Tone test;
5. Pump mechanism failure test;
6. Watchdog interrupt tests;
7. (Periodic) System checks – including a CPU test and ROM / RAM CRC tests;
8. Air detection sensors
9. Environmental monitoring sensors
10. Sensor checks – to check the proper functioning of sensors attached to the pump, if any;
and
11. Dose error reduction checks.
32
Correct implementation of any safety control mechanism should be verified and validated.
Your safety case should also address hazardous situations initiated by the safety control
mechanism itself. 16 Analysis of safety control mechanisms should address and mitigate the
following:
• The safety control mechanism action is not provided or followed;

• The resulting action from a safety control mechanism is unsafe and results in a
hazardous situation;
• The safety control mechanism action occurs too early, too late, or in the wrong order.
• The safety control mechanism action is stopped too soon or applied too long.
6. 510(k) Pre-Clearance Inspection of Infusion Pump

Manufacturers
FDA may conduct a pre-clearance inspection of infusion pump manufacturers.
Since 2003, FDA has seen a dramatic increase in the number of Class I recalls 17 associated with
infusion pumps. FDA has also received numerous MDRs and complaints from consumers
associated with the use of infusion pumps. These recalls and MDRs suggest that infusion pump
manufacturers may not have adequate quality system implementation at their manufacturing
facility. Subsequent FDA inspections have often identified violations of the Quality System
regulation in these situations. Thus, FDA finds that preclearance inspections may be necessary to
reduce serious adverse events associated with the use of these devices.
In determining whether a pre-clearance inspection is needed, FDA may consider, among other
factors, whether:
• It is a device that presents new technological characteristics;
• An inspection of the facility has not occurred within the past two years;
• An inspection has occurred within the past two years, but did not cover a similar
manufacturing process and product;
• An inspection has occurred within two years and the classification was voluntary action
indicated (VAI) or official action indicated (OAI); or
• A 510(k) is submitted to change the device to address failures or postmarket device

malfunction reports.
16
Leveson, Nancy, Engineering a Safer World, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2011.
17
Under 21 CFR 7.3(m)(1), a class I recall “is a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or
exposure to, a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.”
33
When a pre-clearance inspection is needed, FDA intends to perform a Level 2 Comprehensive
Inspection per FDA’s Compliance Program Guidance Manual 7382.845, Inspection of Medical
Device Manufacturers. This inspection will include review of your MDR procedures and
processes.
FDA finds that there is a substantial likelihood that the failure to comply with the Quality System
regulation (21 CFR Part 820) for these products will potentially present a serious risk to human
health. Therefore, in accordance with section 513(f)(5) of the FD&C Act, FDA may withhold
clearance of your 510(k) submission for infusion pumps covered by this guidance based on the
results of a pre-clearance inspection.
7. Postmarket Surveillance of Infusion Pumps
Manufacturer Reporting Requirements

Infusion pump manufacturers are subject to the MDR regulations at 21 CFR Part 803. The
MDR regulation (21 CFR 803.50) requires a manufacturer to submit a report to FDA
whenever the manufacturer becomes aware of information, from any source, that reasonably
suggests that its device:
• May have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury; or

• Has malfunctioned and the device or a similar device that the manufacturer markets
would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction
were to recur.
The MDR regulations also include reporting and recordkeeping requirements for medical
device user facilities (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes) and importers of medical devices, as well
as device complaint recordkeeping requirements for medical device distributors.
Manufacturers (defined in 21 CFR 803.3) are required to comply with 21 CFR Part 803,
which includes the following:
• Submit MDR reportable events involving their medical devices, as described in 21 CFR
803.50 and 803.52;
• Submit 5-day reports, as described in 21 CFR 803.53;
• Submit supplemental reports, as described in 21 CFR 803.56;
• Develop, maintain, and implement written procedures for the timely and effective
identification, communication, and evaluation of events that may be subject to MDR
requirements, and for a standardized review process for determining when an event
meets the criteria for reporting under 21 CFR Part 803, as required by 21 CFR 803.17;
• Conduct an investigation of each event and evaluate the cause of the event, as required
by 21 CFR 803.50(b)(3), and
• Establish and maintain MDR event files, clearly identify all MDR event files, and
maintain them to facilitate timely access, as required by 21 CFR 803.18.
34
The MDR report (FDA Form 3500A) must contain all the information described in 21 CFR
803.52 that is known or reasonably known to the manufacturer. Information reasonably
known, under 21 CFR 803.50(b), includes any information that the manufacturer:
• Can obtain by contacting a user facility, importer, or other initial reporter;

• Is in the possession of; or
• Can obtain by analysis, testing, or other evaluation of the device.
The FDA Form 3500A, instructions for completing specific items on the form, and the coding
manual can be found at:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Safety/MedWatch/HowToReport/DownloadForms/UCM3870
02.pdf.
For additional guidance on the MDR regulations and the reporting requirements, please refer
to the FDA’s Guidance, Medical Device Reporting for Manufacturers
m094529.htm).
Common Infusion Pump Reportability Questions from

Manufacturers
Do I need to submit an MDR report If the information reasonably suggests that your
for malfunctions that result in delay of device may have caused or contributed to a death or
drug therapy? serious injury, or has malfunctioned and that the
device or a similar device marketed by you would
be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious
injury if the malfunction were to recur, then this is
considered a reportable event. 21 CFR 803.3 and
803.50.
We have a fail-safe feature in our The fact that you have a fail-safe feature does not
infusion pumps. Since we have this eliminate your obligations under 21 CFR part 803.
feature in our pumps, when there is a You must develop, maintain, and implement
device malfunction, would I have to written procedures for the timely and effective
submit an MDR report? identification, communication, and evaluation of
events that may be subject to MDR requirements,
and for a standardized review process for
determining when an event meets the criteria for
reporting under 21 CFR Part 803, as required by 21
CFR 803.17.
35
It is important to analyze, test, and evaluate the
How much effort should a firm take to device in order to conduct a thorough investigation
obtain additional information and/or into the root cause of the reported event and
the device? determine if device malfunction contributed to the
event. 21 CFR 803.50(b).
If your report omits any required information, you

must explain why this information was not
provided and the steps taken to obtain this
information. 21 CFR 803.52(f)(11)(iii).
The MDR report (FDA Form 3500A) must contain
How much detail do I need to use to all the information described in 21 CFR 803.52 that
describe the event? is known or reasonably known to the manufacturer,
including, but not limited to: how the device was
involved, nature of the problem, any required
patient treatment, outcomes attributed to the
adverse event, and any environmental conditions
that may have influenced the event. 21 CFR
803.52.
36

Infusion Pumps Total Product Life Cycle Guidance For Industry and FDA Staff

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Infusion Pumps Total Product Life Cycle Guidance For Industry and FDA Staff

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Infusion Pumps Total Product Life Cycle Guidance For Industry and FDA Staff

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Infusion Pumps Total Product Life

The draft of this document was issued on April 23, 2010.

This document supersedes the “Guidance on the Content of Premarket

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Office of Device Evaluation

Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff

§ 880.5725 Infusion pump

In addition to providing the information required in a premarket notification submission under 21

• Provide a detailed description (including, where appropriate, assembly drawings, bill of

o The infusion delivery mechanism;

• If your infusion pump incorporates or is intended to incorporate radio-frequency (RF) wireless

5. Safety Assurance Case

A. General Considerations for Safety Case Development

The three main elements of a safety assurance case are:

1. Claim: Statement about a property of the system or some subsystem.

2. Argument: Links the evidence to the claim. Arguments can be deterministic,

• A separate argument structure demonstrating the completeness of the hazard analysis

• Depending on the complexity of the infusion pump, it is useful to provide specific

• A traceability analysis is useful in demonstrating that all identified hazardous situations

Table 2 – Infusion Pump System Hazards

Infusion Pump System Hazards System Hazard Definitions

• Systematic and random failures;

Sources of hazardous situations:

Table 3 – Operational Sources

Broken drug reservoir

Table 4 – Environmental Sources

Inadequate shielding, filtering, or other electromagnetic

Table 5 – Electrical Sources

Charge Error Battery could not be charged

Electromagnetic compatibility Electromagnetic interference (EMI) [** see list in table 4]

Table 6 – Hardware Sources

Table 7 – Software Sources

Table 8 – Mechanical Sources

Pump stops infusion Pump motor fails

Table 9 – Biological and Chemical Sources

Physical damage to pump Inadequate device cleaning or disinfection

Table 10 – Use Sources

Children, pets, pests or vermin tamper with or damage

1. A description of the device design requirement being verified, including why it is

3. The justification for the use of prototype or “production equivalent” devices or

4. An explicit statement of the acceptance criteria for the verification activity;

5. A detailed description of the verification method, including drawings and descriptions

7. The results of the verification activity;

8. An analysis of the verification activity results; and

9. An explicit statement of any conclusions drawn from the verification activity.

1. A description of the design requirement implemented to address a user need or

6. The design validation method/protocol used;

7. The results of the design validation activity;

8. An analysis of the design validation activity results; and

Each available configuration of the system should be tested, though testing of

Electrical Equipment Safety

Radio Frequency Wireless Technology

• A description of the anomaly from a symptom point of view and how it is

• Confidentiality means data, information, or system structures are accessible only to

• The dosing algorithms used within your device.

• Each algorithm should be verified and validated in your software documentation to

To make a biological safety argument based on equivalence to a predicate, you should

• For device-related chemical residual characterization, the Agency recommends