Cleared Traditional

K902114 - CUFF-MATE 2 ENDOTRACHEAL CUFF INFLATOR & MONITOR (FDA 510(k) Clearance)

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

K902114 · Diemolding Corp. · Anesthesiology device
Download Printable Device Report (PDF)
Optimized for regulatory review, auditing and printing
Jul 1990
Decision
68d
Days
Class 2
Risk

K902114 is an FDA 510(k) clearance for the CUFF-MATE 2 ENDOTRACHEAL CUFF INFLATOR & MONITOR. Classified as Cuff, Tracheal Tube, Inflatable (product code BSK), Class II - Special Controls.

Submitted by Diemolding Corp. (Canastota, US). The FDA issued a Cleared decision on July 18, 1990 after a review of 68 days - a notably fast clearance cycle.

This device falls under the Anesthesiology FDA review panel, regulated under 21 CFR 868.5750 - the FDA anesthesiology and respiratory 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 K902114 FDA.gov
FDA Decision Cleared Substantially Equivalent - Traditional 510(k) (SESE)
Date Received May 11, 1990
Decision Date July 18, 1990
Days to Decision 68 days
Submission Type Traditional
Review Panel Anesthesiology (AN)
Summary -
Third-party Review No - reviewed directly by FDA
Regulatory Context
Review time vs. panel average
71d faster than avg
Panel avg: 139d · This submission: 68d
Pathway characteristics
Predicate-based equivalence. No clinical trials required.

Device Classification

Product Code BSK Cuff, Tracheal Tube, Inflatable
Device Class Class 2 - Special Controls
CFR Regulation 21 CFR 868.5750
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 Anesthesiology devices follow this clearance model.