Cleared Traditional

K934168 - CEDIA DIGOXIN PLUS ASSAY (FDA 510(k) Clearance)

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

K934168 · Microgenics Corp. · Toxicology device
Download Printable Device Report (PDF)
Optimized for regulatory review, auditing and printing
Dec 1993
Decision
124d
Days
Class 2
Risk

K934168 is an FDA 510(k) clearance for the CEDIA DIGOXIN PLUS ASSAY. Classified as Enzyme Immunoassay, Digoxin (product code KXT), Class II - Special Controls.

Submitted by Microgenics Corp. (Concord, US). The FDA issued a Cleared decision on December 29, 1993 after a review of 124 days - within the typical 510(k) review window.

This device falls under the Toxicology FDA review panel, regulated under 21 CFR 862.3320 - the FDA toxicology 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: Standard predicate-based submission. Standard predicate reliance. This clearance follows a standard predicate-based equivalence path within the Toxicology review framework, consistent with the majority of Class II 510(k) submissions.

View all Microgenics Corp. devices

Submission Details

510(k) Number K934168 FDA.gov
FDA Decision Cleared Substantially Equivalent - Traditional 510(k) (SESE)
Date Received August 27, 1993
Decision Date December 29, 1993
Days to Decision 124 days
Submission Type Traditional
Review Panel Toxicology (TX)
Summary Statement
Third-party Review No - reviewed directly by FDA
Regulatory Context
Review time vs. panel average
37d slower than avg
Panel avg: 87d · This submission: 124d
Pathway characteristics
Predicate-based equivalence. No clinical trials required.

Device Classification

Product Code KXT Enzyme Immunoassay, Digoxin
Device Class Class 2 - Special Controls
CFR Regulation 21 CFR 862.3320
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 Toxicology devices follow this clearance model.