(86 days)
The NC Emerge Over-The-Wire (OTW) and NC Emerge Monorail (MR) PTCA Dilatation Catheters are indicated for the balloon catheter dilatation of the stenotic portion of a native coronary artery or bypass graft stenosis for the purpose of improving myocardial perfusion in patients with atherosclerosis.
NC Emerge Over-The-Wire and NC Emerge Monorail PTCA Dilatation Catheters (balloon models 2.00-5.00 mm) are also indicated for the post-delivery expansion of balloon expandable stents (bare metal and drug-eluting).
The NC Emerge PTCA Dilatation Catheters are sterile, single-use, intravascular medical devices. The catheter consists of a shaft with a balloon near the distal tip. The balloon is designed to provide an inflatable segment of known diameter and length at recommended pressures. The NC Emerge PTCA Dilatation Catheter is offered in both Monorail (MR) and Over-The-Wire (OTW) platforms. There are two (2) radiopaque marker bands located under the balloon to aid in positioning the system during the procedure. Coatings are applied to the balloon and catheter to enhance insertion and withdrawal performance.
The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the NC Emerge™ PTCA Dilatation Catheter. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices through bench testing and biocompatibility testing. The document explicitly states "No new safety or performance issues were raised during the testing and, therefore, these devices may be considered substantially equivalent to the predicate devices."
However, the provided text does not contain the specific acceptance criteria, reported performance values, or detailed study results (like sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert information) that would typically be found in a comprehensive study report. The "Performance Data" section lists the types of tests performed but does not provide quantitative results or explicit acceptance criteria for those tests.
Therefore, many of the requested details cannot be extracted from this document.
Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be provided based on the input:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
- Cannot be provided definitively from the text. The document lists the types of performance tests conducted (e.g., Effective Length, Rated Burst Pressure, Balloon Fatigue), but it does not specify the acceptance criteria or quantitative reported performance values for these tests. For example, it doesn't state what the accepted range for "Effective Length" is or what the measured effective length was. It only concludes that the tests supported substantial equivalence.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
- Cannot be provided from the text. The document mentions "bench testing and biocompatibility testing were performed" but does not specify the sample sizes used for these tests. It also does not provide information on data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective). This is common for 510(k) summaries, which often abstract away detailed test reports.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g., radiologist with 10 years of experience)
- Not applicable / Cannot be provided from the text. This type of information is relevant for studies involving human physiological data or image interpretation where expert consensus forms the ground truth. The tests described are "bench testing" and "biocompatibility testing," which are laboratory tests performed on the device itself, not human subjects. Therefore, the concept of "experts establishing ground truth" in the way described does not apply here.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
- Not applicable / Cannot be provided from the text. Similar to point 3, adjudication methods are typically used for expert review of subjective data (like medical images or clinical outcomes). The described tests are objective laboratory measurements, so adjudication by experts is not relevant.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance
- No. This device is a PTCA Dilatation Catheter, a physical medical device used in interventional cardiology. It is not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive tool. Therefore, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance is not relevant to this device.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- No. This device is a physical medical device, not an algorithm or AI system. Therefore, a standalone algorithm performance study is not relevant.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)
- Not applicable / Cannot be provided directly as "ground truth" in the requested sense. For the bench and biocompatibility tests, the "ground truth" would be established by physical measurement standards, internationally recognized test methods (e.g., ISO standards), and internal Boston Scientific specifications for device performance. It's not "expert consensus" on an image, for example, but rather adherence to predefined engineering specifications and biological safety standards.
8. The sample size for the training set
- Not applicable / Cannot be provided from the text. Training sets are relevant for machine learning or AI models. This device is a physical medical device, not an AI system. Therefore, there is no "training set" in this context.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- Not applicable / Cannot be provided from the text. As explained in point 8, there is no training set for this type of device.
Summary of available information from the text regarding acceptance criteria and study:
The document outlines that the device was subjected to:
- "bench testing"
- "biocompatibility testing"
These tests were performed "according to the requirements of Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff – Class II Special Controls for Certain Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) Catheters, 08 September 2010."
The types of tests completed are listed under "Performance Data":
Biocompatibility and Chemical Characterization Tests:
- Cytotoxicity
- Sensitization
- Intracutaneous Reactivity
- Acute Systemic Toxicity
- Materials Mediated Pyrogenicity
- USP Physicochemical
- Hemolysis (Direct Contact)
- Hemolysis (Extract Method)
- Complement Activation
- Coagulation
- In Vitro Hemocompatibility
In-vitro Performance Tests:
- Effective Length
- Shaft Inner and Outer Diameter
- Crossing Profile
- Balloon Preparation, Deployment, and Retraction
- Withdrawal into a Guide Catheter
- Rated Burst Pressure
- Balloon Fatigue (Repeat Inflations)
- Balloon Compliance
- Balloon Inflation/Deflation Time
- Catheter Bond Strength Tensile
- Tip Pull Test
- Flexibility and Kink
- Torque Strength
- Radiopacity
- Coating Integrity
- Particulate Evaluation
- Rated Burst Pressure in a Stent
- Balloon Fatigue (in Stent)
- Kissing Balloon Compatibility
Conclusion: "The results of these tests provide reasonable assurance that the proposed device has been designed and tested to assure conformance to the requirements for its intended use. No new safety or performance issues were raised during the testing and, therefore, these devices may be considered substantially equivalent to the predicate devices."
In essence, the "study" is a series of laboratory tests demonstrating that the NC Emerge PTCA Dilatation Catheter performs comparably to its predicate devices in accordance with regulatory guidance and relevant standards, ensuring its safety and effectiveness. The specific quantitative acceptance criteria and detailed performance values are not disclosed in this summary document.
§ 870.5100 Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) Catheter.
(a)
Standard PTCA Catheter —(1)Identification. A PTCA catheter is a device that operates on the principle of hydraulic pressurization applied through an inflatable balloon attached to the distal end. A PTCA balloon catheter has a single or double lumen shaft. The catheter features a balloon of appropriate compliance for the clinical application, constructed from a polymer. The balloon is designed to uniformly expand to a specified diameter and length at a specific pressure as labeled, with well characterized rates of inflation and deflation and a defined burst pressure. The device generally features a type of radiographic marker to facilitate fluoroscopic visualization of the balloon during use. A PTCA catheter is intended for balloon dilatation of a hemodynamically significant coronary artery or bypass graft stenosis in patients evidencing coronary ischemia for the purpose of improving myocardial perfusion. A PTCA catheter may also be intended for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction; treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and/or post-deployment stent expansion.(2)
Classification. Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document for Certain Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) Catheters.” See § 870.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.(b)
Cutting/scoring PTCA Catheter —(1)Identification. A cutting/scoring PTCA catheter is a balloon-tipped catheter with cutting/scoring elements attached, which is used in those circumstances where a high pressure balloon resistant lesion is encountered. A cutting/scoring PTCA catheter is intended for the treatment of hemodynamically significant coronary artery stenosis for the purpose of improving myocardial perfusion. A cutting/scoring PTCA catheter may also be indicated for use in complex type C lesions or for the treatment of in-stent restenosis.(2)
Classification. Class III (premarket approval). As of May 28, 1976, an approval under section 515 of the act is required before this device may be commercially distributed. See § 870.3.