Cleared Traditional

K760931 - I.V. DRIP MONITOR ALARM DEVICE, MONIFLO (FDA 510(k) Clearance)

Class II General Hospital device cleared through predicate-based substantial equivalence - typically does not require clinical trials.

K760931 · Diemolding Corp. · General Hospital
Download Printable Device Report (PDF)
Optimized for regulatory review, auditing and printing
Jan 1977
Decision
68d
Days
Class 2
Risk

K760931 is an FDA 510(k) clearance for the I.V. DRIP MONITOR ALARM DEVICE, MONIFLO. Classified as Monitor, Electric For Gravity Flow Infusion Systems (product code FLN), Class II - Special Controls.

Submitted by Diemolding Corp. (Mchenry, US). The FDA issued a Cleared decision on January 5, 1977 after a review of 68 days - a notably fast clearance cycle.

This device falls under the General Hospital FDA review panel, regulated under 21 CFR 880.2420 - the FDA general hospital device framework. The Traditional 510(k) pathway establishes clearance through substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, without requiring clinical trial data.

Device pattern: Fast-track predicate clearance. Standard predicate reliance. The short review cycle indicates strong predicate alignment - the FDA found sufficient equivalence without extended technical review.

View all Diemolding Corp. devices

Submission Details

510(k) Number K760931 FDA.gov
FDA Decision Cleared Substantially Equivalent - Traditional 510(k) (SESE)
Date Received October 29, 1976
Decision Date January 05, 1977
Days to Decision 68 days
Submission Type Traditional
Review Panel General Hospital (HO)
Summary -
Third-party Review No - reviewed directly by FDA
Regulatory Context
Review time vs. panel average
60d faster than avg
Panel avg: 128d · This submission: 68d
Pathway characteristics
Predicate-based equivalence. No clinical trials required.

Device Classification

Product Code FLN Monitor, Electric For Gravity Flow Infusion Systems
Device Class Class 2 - Special Controls
CFR Regulation 21 CFR 880.2420
What this classification means

Class II devices require demonstration of substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device. This pathway does not require clinical trials - it relies on engineering equivalence and performance data. Most General Hospital devices follow this clearance model.