(92 days)
The ILUMIEN with C7 Dragonfly, Dragonfly DUO, or Dragonfly OPTIS Imaging Catheter is intended for the imaging of coronary arteries and is indicated in patients who are candidates for transluminal interventional procedures. The C7 Dragonfly, Dragonfly DUO, or Dragonfly OPTIS Imaging Catheter is intended for use in vessels 2.0 to 3.5 mm in diameter. The C7 Dragonfly, Dragonfly DUO, or Dragonfly OPTIS Imaging Catheter is not intended for use in the left main coronary artery or in a target vessel which has undergone a previous bypass procedure.
The ILUMIEN will further acquire radio frequency signal outputs from both a distal intracoronary pressure transducer and a proximal aortic pressure transducer to determine the physiological parameter, Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR). The physician may use the FFR parameter, along with knowledge of patient history, medical expertise and clinical judgment to determine if therapeutic intervention is indicated.
The Dragonfly OPTIS Imaging Catheter with the OCT Imaging System is intended for the imaging of coronary arteries and is indicated in patients who are candidates for transluminal interventional procedures. The Dragonfly OPTIS Imaging Catheter is intended for use in vessels 2.0 to 3.5 mm in diameter. The Dragonfly OPTIS Imaging Catheter is not intended for use in the left main coronary.
The ILUMIEN is a cart-mounted computer and Imaging Engine (or optical engine) placed inside an ergonomically designed mobile cart with a mains power cable. It also includes the Drive-motor and Optical Controller (DOC), which provides the interconnection between the ILUMIEN System and the Dragonfly Catheter. The cart is equipped with two display monitors (one for the console operator, and the other for the physician), as well as a keyboard and mouse.
The cart also contains an isolation transformer for electrical safety and includes two AO and PW USB Receivers which accept the distal intracoronary and proximal aortic pressure signals and status information from the AO Interface Unit and PressureWire® Aeris (K080813) respectively, and communicate the FFR data for display on the ILUMIEN system.
The Dragonfly OPTIS Imaging Catheter is a sterile, single-use intravascular catheter consisting of a catheter body external sheath and an internal rotating fiber optic imaging core. The external sheath serves two primary functions: 1) to facilitate placement of the device into the coronary artery and 2) to cover and protect the inner rotating fiber optic imaging core.
The inner rotating fiber optic imaging core emits near infrared light to the tissue and receives reflected light. It is driven by a stainless steel torque wire visible under fluoroscopy and pulled back through the window tube of the external sheath by the DOC. The emitted and returned reflected light are combined and processed by the ILUMIEN Optis System software to construct an OCT image. The patient is never exposed to moving parts as the external sheath completely covers the rotating imaging core.
The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Lightlab Imaging, Inc. ILUMIEN with Dragonfly OPTIS Imaging Catheter. It indicates that the device has been found substantially equivalent to a predicate device (Lightlab Imaging, Inc. ILUMIEN, K111200). However, the document does not contain specific acceptance criteria, reported performance metrics as a table, or details about patient studies for the new device's performance.
The document discusses performance testing in a general sense, noting that hardware/firmware are unchanged and that software verification/validation, as well as design verification/validation (bench testing), were conducted in compliance with FDA regulations. Crucially, it states: "The results of this testing conclude the software has met these requirements. Design verification and validation was also performed on the ILUMIEN and Dragonfly OPTIS Imaging Catheter in compliance with internal design control procedures which included bench testing. The results of this testing concludes the ILUMIEN and Dragonfly OPTIS Imaging Catheter is determined to be safe and effective and is substantially equivalent to the predicate ILUMIEN device."
This implies that the device meets safety and effectiveness requirements, demonstrating substantial equivalence to its predicate, but it does not provide a specific study with acceptance criteria and results. The 510(k) process is about demonstrating substantial equivalence to an already marketed device, not necessarily proving efficacy through new clinical trials with defined acceptance criteria for a novel device.
Therefore, many of the requested details are not available in the provided text.
Here is a summary of what can be extracted or inferred, and what is not available:
1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
- Not available in the provided text. The document states that testing was conducted and concluded the device is safe, effective, and substantially equivalent, but it does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed performance metrics. It refers to compliance with various electrical safety, EMI, laser safety, and DICOM standards, but these are compliance standards, not performance thresholds for clinical accuracy or diagnostic capabilities.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance
- Not available in the provided text. The document mentions "bench testing" for design verification and validation but does not specify sample sizes or data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) for any test set that would evaluate clinical performance.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
- Not available in the provided text. There is no mention of experts establishing ground truth for evaluating clinical performance. The testing described focuses on engineering compliance and bench tests.
4. Adjudication method for the test set
- Not available in the provided text. As clinical performance testing with a ground truth established by experts is not described, an adjudication method is also not mentioned.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and the effect size
- No, this was not done or at least not described in the document. The document does not mention any MRMC studies or human reader performance with or without AI assistance. The device is an imaging system and catheter, not an AI-based diagnostic tool that assists human readers in the way typically evaluated by MRMC studies.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- Not explicitly described as such. The device is an imaging system that produces OCT images and FFR parameters for a physician's use. It's not an algorithm producing a diagnostic output without human interpretation. Its performance is evaluated mechanically and through software validation, as outlined in the general "performance testing" section, but not in terms of standalone diagnostic accuracy in a clinical sense.
7. The type of ground truth used
- Not explicitly stated in a clinical context. For the engineering and software validation, the "ground truth" would be established by the specifications and expected behavior based on internal design control procedures and established standards (e.g., UL, IEC, DICOM, FDA regulations). For the "imaging" aspect, the ground truth would be the physical properties of the tested objects in bench experiments. No pathology or outcomes data is mentioned as ground truth.
8. The sample size for the training set
- Not applicable/Not available. The document describes modifications and upgrades to an existing imaging system and catheter. It does not refer to a machine learning or AI model that would require a "training set" in the conventional sense. The "software has been upgraded to revision D.2," indicating software development and testing, but not machine learning training.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- Not applicable/Not available. As there's no mention of a machine learning training set, there's no information on how its ground truth would be established.
In summary: The provided 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through compliance with standards, verification, and validation of hardware and software modifications. It does not include specific clinical studies with defined acceptance criteria or expert-adjudicated performance data for the new device. The conclusion of substantial equivalence is based on the updated device having the same fundamental technological characteristics and indications for use as the predicate, with performance verified through bench testing and software validation against engineering standards and internal design controls.
§ 892.1560 Ultrasonic pulsed echo imaging system.
(a)
Identification. An ultrasonic pulsed echo imaging system is a device intended to project a pulsed sound beam into body tissue to determine the depth or location of the tissue interfaces and to measure the duration of an acoustic pulse from the transmitter to the tissue interface and back to the receiver. This generic type of device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, component parts, and accessories.(b)
Classification. Class II (special controls). A biopsy needle guide kit intended for use with an ultrasonic pulsed echo imaging system only is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 892.9.