(88 days)
No
The summary describes a mechanical device for thrombus removal and does not mention any AI/ML components or functionalities.
Yes.
The device is intended to restore blood flow and remove thrombus in patients experiencing ischemic stroke by physically removing the obstruction, aligning with the definition of a therapeutic device that treats a medical condition.
No
Explanation: The device is described as a revascularization device intended to remove thrombus and restore blood flow in patients experiencing ischemic stroke. Its function is to perform a therapeutic procedure (clot removal), not to diagnose a condition.
No
The device description clearly states it is a physical device composed of Nitinol and designed to be inserted into the neurovasculature. The performance studies also detail extensive bench and animal testing of the physical device's properties and performance.
No, this device is not an IVD (In Vitro Diagnostic).
Here's why:
- IVD Definition: In Vitro Diagnostic devices are used to examine specimens taken from the human body (like blood, urine, tissue) to provide information for diagnosis, monitoring, or screening.
- EMBOTRAP™ III Function: The EMBOTRAP™ III Revascularization Device is a medical device used inside the body to physically remove a thrombus (blood clot) from the neurovasculature. It is a therapeutic device, not a diagnostic one.
- Intended Use: The intended use clearly states it's for "restor[ing] blood flow in the neurovasculature by removing thrombus." This is a treatment, not a diagnostic test.
- Device Description: The description details a physical device designed for insertion into the body to perform a mechanical action.
The information provided describes a device used for a medical procedure performed on the patient, not a test performed on a sample from the patient.
N/A
Intended Use / Indications for Use
The EMBOTRAP™ III Revascularization Device is intended to restore blood flow in the neurovasculature by removing thrombus in patients experiencing ischemic stroke within 8 hours of symptom onset. Patients who are ineligible for intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV t-PA) or who fail IV t-PA therapy are candidates for treatment.
Product codes (comma separated list FDA assigned to the subject device)
NRY
Device Description
The EMBOTRAP™ III Revascularization Device is composed of a retrievable, self-expanding, Nitinol shaped section at the distal end of a tapered Nitinol shaft. It is designed to restore blood flow in the neurovasculature by removing thrombus in patients experiencing ischemic stroke. The EMBOTRAP™ III Revascularization Device is supplied sterile and is intended for single-use only by physicians trained in neuro-interventional catheterization and the treatment of ischemic stroke.
Mentions image processing
Not Found
Mentions AI, DNN, or ML
Not Found
Input Imaging Modality
Not Found
Anatomical Site
neurovasculature
Indicated Patient Age Range
Not Found
Intended User / Care Setting
physicians trained in neuro-interventional catheterization and the treatment of ischemic stroke.
Description of the training set, sample size, data source, and annotation protocol
Not Found
Description of the test set, sample size, data source, and annotation protocol
Not Found
Summary of Performance Studies (study type, sample size, AUC, MRMC, standalone performance, key results)
Biocompatibility Testing: The biocompatibility evaluation for the EMBOTRAP™ III Revascularization Device was conducted in accordance with International Standard ISO 10993-1 "Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices -Part 1: Evaluation and Testing Within a Risk Management Process" and FDA Biocompatibility Guidance. The device is categorized as an external communicating device with limited exposure (
§ 870.1250 Percutaneous catheter.
(a)
Identification. A percutaneous catheter is a device that is introduced into a vein or artery through the skin using a dilator and a sheath (introducer) or guide wire.(b)
Classification. Class II (performance standards).
0
Image /page/0/Picture/0 description: The image shows the logo of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The logo consists of two parts: a seal on the left and the FDA acronym with the agency's name on the right. The seal features an eagle-like figure, while the text reads "FDA U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION" in blue, with "ADMINISTRATION" appearing in a smaller font size below the rest of the name.
July 30, 2021
Neuravi Ltd. Niall Fox Director of Regulatory Affairs Block 3, Ballybrit Business Park Galway H91 K5YD, Ireland
Re: K211338
Trade/Device Name: EMBOTRAP III Revascularization Device Regulation Number: 21 CFR 870.1250 Regulation Name: Percutaneous Catheter Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: NRY Dated: April 30, 2021 Received: May 3, 2021
Dear Niall Fox:
We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments, or to devices that have been reclassified in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) that do not require approval of a premarket approval application (PMA). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general controls provisions of the Act. Although this letter refers to your product as a device, please be aware that some cleared products may instead be combination products. The 510(k) Premarket Notification Database located at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm identifies combination product submissions. The general controls provisions of the Act include requirements for annual registration, listing of devices, good manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions against misbranding and adulteration. Please note: CDRH does not evaluate information related to contract liability warranties. We remind you, however, that device labeling must be truthful and not misleading.
If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (PMA), it may be subject to additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 898. In addition, FDA may publish further announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register.
Please be advised that FDA's issuance of a substantial equivalence determination does not mean that FDA has made a determination that your device complies with other requirements of the Act or any Federal statutes and regulations administered by other Federal agencies. You must comply with all the Act's requirements, including, but not limited to: registration and listing (21 CFR Part 807); labeling (21 CFR Part 801); medical device reporting of medical device-related adverse events) (21 CFR 803) for
1
devices or postmarketing safety reporting (21 CFR 4, Subpart B) for combination products (see https://www.fda.gov/combination-products/guidance-regulatory-information/postmarketing-safety-reportingcombination-products); good manufacturing practice requirements as set forth in the quality systems (QS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820) for devices or current good manufacturing practices (21 CFR 4, Subpart A) for combination products; and, if applicable, the electronic product radiation control provisions (Sections 531-542 of the Act); 21 CFR 1000-1050.
Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21 CFR Part 807.97). For questions regarding the reporting of adverse events under the MDR regulation (21 CFR Part 803), please go to https://www.fda.gov/medical-device-safety/medical-device-reportingmdr-how-report-medical-device-problems.
For comprehensive regulatory information about medical devices and radiation-emitting products, including information about labeling regulations, please see Device Advice (https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance) and CDRH Learn (https://www.fda.gov/training-and-continuing-education/cdrh-learn). Additionally, you may contact the Division of Industry and Consumer Education (DICE) to ask a question about a specific regulatory topic. See the DICE website (https://www.fda.gov/medical-device-advice-comprehensive-regulatoryassistance/contact-us-division-industry-and-consumer-education-dice) for more information or contact DICE by email (DICE@fda.hhs.gov) or phone (1-800-638-2041 or 301-796-7100).
Sincerely,
Naira Muradyan, Ph.D. Assistant Director DHT5A: Division of Neurosurgical, Neurointerventional and Neurodiagnostic Devices OHT5: Office of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices Office of Product Evaluation and Quality Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
2
Indications for Use
510(k) Number (if known) K211338
Device Name EMBOTRAP III Revascularization Device
Indications for Use (Describe)
The EMBOTRAP™ III Revascularization Device is intended to restore blood flow in the neurovasculature by removing thrombus in patients experiencing ischemic stroke within 8 hours of symptom onset. Patients who are ineligible for intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV t-PA) or who fail IV t-PA therapy are candidates for treatment.
| Type of Use (Select one or both, as applicable) |
|---|
| ------------------------------------------------- |
| ☑ Recreational Use (Part 21 CFR 201.326 Subject) | □ Over-The-Counter Use (21 CFR 201.66 Subject) |
|---|---|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Prescription Use (Part 21 CFR 801 Subpart D)
__ Over-The-Counter Use (21 CFR 801 Subpart C)
CONTINUE ON A SEPARATE PAGE IF NEEDED.
This section applies only to requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DO NOT SEND YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE PRA STAFF EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW.
The burden time for this collection of information is estimated to average 79 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed and complete and review the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Office of Chief Information Officer Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Staff PRAStaff(@fda.hhs.gov
"An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB number."
3
510(k) Summary
K211338
l. SUBMITTER:
510(k) Owner: Neuravi Ltd.
Block 3, Ballybrit Business Park, Galway H91 K5YD, Ireland
Contact Person: Niall Fox
Director of Regulatory Affairs
Tel: +353-91-394123
E-mail: nfox5@its.jnj.com
Date Prepared: July 28th, 2021
DEVICE II.
Trade Name of Device: EMBOTRAP™ III Revascularization Device
Common Name of Device: Catheter, Thrombus Retriever
Classification Name: 21 CFR 870.1250 - Class II
Product Code: NRY
PREDICATE DEVICES III.
EmboTrap® II Revascularization Device (K173452)
EMBOTRAP™ III Revascularisation Device (5 x 22 mm and 5 x 37 mm models via K193063)
Solitaire™ Platinum Revascularization Device (K160641)
IV. DEVICE DESCRIPTION
The EMBOTRAP™ III Revascularization Device is composed of a retrievable, self-expanding, Nitinol shaped section at the distal end of a tapered Nitinol shaft. It is designed to restore blood flow in the neurovasculature by removing thrombus in patients experiencing ischemic stroke. The EMBOTRAP™ III Revascularization Device is supplied sterile and is intended for single-use only by physicians trained in neuro-interventional catheterization and the treatment of ischemic stroke.
V. INDICATIONS FOR USE
The EMBOTRAP™ III Revascularization Device is intended to restore blood flow in the neurovasculature by removing thrombus in patients experiencing ischemic stroke within 8 hours of symptom onset. Patients who are ineligible for intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV t-PA) or who fail IV t-PA therapy are candidates for treatment.
COMPARISON OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS WITH THE PREDICATE DEVICE VI.
A summary of the technological characteristics of the EMBOTRAP™ III device in comparison to those of the predicate devices is presented below
4
| Characteristics | Predicate Devices Referenced in this Submission | Proposed SE Device | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EMBOTRAP III | ||||
| (5 x 22 mm and 5 x 37 mm) | EMBOTRAP II | Solitaire™ Platinum | EMBOTRAP III | |
| (6.5 x 45 mm) | ||||
| Manufacturer | Neuravi Ltd. | Neuravi Ltd. | Covidien/Medtronic | Same as EMBOTRAP II |
| 510(k) Number | K193063 | K173452 | K160641 | N/A |
| Classification | Class II (21CFR 870.1250) | Same | ||
| Device Classification Name | Catheter, Thrombus Retriever | Same | ||
| Classification Product Code | NRY | Same | ||
| Indication for Use | The EMBOTRAP III Revascularization | |||
| Device is intended to restore blood | ||||
| flow in the neurovasculature by | ||||
| removing thrombus in patients | ||||
| experiencing ischemic stroke within | ||||
| 8 hours of symptom onset. Patients | ||||
| who are ineligible for intravenous | ||||
| tissue plasminogen activator (IV t- | ||||
| PA) or who fail IV t-PA therapy are | ||||
| candidates for treatment. | The EMBOTRAP II Revascularization | |||
| Device is intended to restore blood | ||||
| flow in the neurovasculature by | ||||
| removing thrombus in patients | ||||
| experiencing ischemic stroke within | ||||
| 8 hours of symptom onset. Patients | ||||
| who are ineligible for intravenous | ||||
| tissue plasminogen activator (IV t- | ||||
| PA) or who fail IV t-PA therapy are | ||||
| candidates for treatment. | The Solitaire Platinum Revascularization | |||
| Device is intended to restore blood flow | ||||
| by removing thrombus from a large | ||||
| intracranial vessel in patients | ||||
| experiencing ischemic stroke within 8 | ||||
| hours of symptom onset. Patients who | ||||
| are ineligible for intravenous tissue | ||||
| plasminogen activator (IV t-PA) or who | ||||
| fail IV t-PA therapy are candidates for | ||||
| treatment. | Same as EMBOTRAP models | |||
| Target Population | Patients with symptoms of an ischemic stroke within 8 hours of symptom onset, who are ineligible for intravenous | |||
| tissue plasminogen activator (IV t-PA) or who fail IV t-PA therapy are candidates for treatment | Same | |||
| Design/Technological | ||||
| Principles | Retrievable, self-expanding Nitinol shaped section | |||
| Nitinol guide-wire like shaft | Same | |||
| Distal End (Retriever) Design | Bi-layer tubular design with a tapered | |||
| distal end with tip | ||||
| Image: [5 x 22 mm device] | ||||
| Image: [5 x 37 mm device] | Bi-layer tubular design with a tapered | |||
| distal end with tip | ||||
| Image: [device] | Same as EMBOTRAP II | |||
| Principal Device Materials | ||||
| Shaped Section & Shaft Wire | Nitinol | Nitinol | Nitinol | Same as EMBOTRAP II |
| Distal Marker/Coil | Platinum/Tungsten Coil | Platinum/Tungsten Coil | Platinum/Iridium | Same as EMBOTRAP II |
| Proximal Marker/Coil | Platinum/Tungsten Coil | Platinum/Tungsten Coil | Platinum/Iridium | Same as EMBOTRAP II |
| Shaft Coating | Hydrophobic | |||
| PTFE Coating | Hydrophobic | |||
| PTFE Coating | Same as EMBOTRAP II | |||
| Design Characteristics & Technology | ||||
| Size(s) Offered | ||||
| (Retriever Diameter × | ||||
| Length) | 5×22mm, 5×37mm, | 5×21 mm, 5×33 mm | 6x40 mm | 6.5x45 mm |
| Device Length | 194 cm, 195 cm | |||
| (Labeled Overall length) | 194 cm, 195 cm | |||
| (Labeled Overall length) | 180 cm | |||
| (Labeled Push Wire Length) | 196 cm | |||
| (Labeled Overall length) | ||||
| Minimum Microcatheter ID | 0.021"-0.027" | 0.021" | 0.027" (6 mm diameter size) | 0.021"-0.027" |
| Key Principles of Operation | The device is used in the neurovasculature to restore blood flow in patients experiencing ischemic stroke | Same |
5
| No. of passes/device IFU | 3 / Device & Vessel | 3 / Device & Vessel | 3 / Device & Vessel | Same | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Additional Characteristics | ||||||||
| How supplied | Sterile/Single Use | Sterile/Single Use | Sterile/Single Use | Same | ||||
| Sterilization Method | Ethylene Oxide | Ethylene Oxide | Ethylene Oxide | Same |
6
VII. PERFORMANCE DATA
Biocompatibility Testing:
The biocompatibility evaluation for the EMBOTRAP™ III Revascularization Device was conducted in accordance with International Standard ISO 10993-1 "Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices -Part 1: Evaluation and Testing Within a Risk Management Process" as recognized by FDA (Recognition Number 2-156) and FDA Biocompatibility Guidance (Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, "Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process", June 16, 2016).
Per ISO 10993-1, the EMBOTRAP™ III device is categorized as an external communicating device with limited exposure, i.e. whose contact with circulating blood is less than 24 hours.
| Test | Results | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|
| Cytotoxicity Study | The test article extract showed no | |
| evidence of causing cell lysis or | ||
| toxicity. The test article extract | ||
| met the requirements of the test. | ||
| Based on the percentage viability | ||
| values for the test article extract | ||
| dilutions, the device is non- | ||
| cytotoxic. | Device is non-cytotoxic per the | |
| Cytotoxicity Studies conducted | ||
| ISO Guinea Pig Maximization | ||
| Sensitization Test | Test article extracts showed no | |
| evidence of causing delayed | ||
| dermal contact sensitization in the | ||
| guinea pig. | Device is not considered a | |
| sensitizer per the Guinea Pig | ||
| Maximization Test | ||
| ISO Intracutaneous Study in | ||
| Rabbits | The difference between the test | |
| extract overall mean score and the | ||
| corresponding control overall | ||
| mean score was 1.0 or less. | Device is not an irritant when | |
| injected intracutaneously per the | ||
| ISO Intracutaneous Study in | ||
| Rabbits | ||
| ISO Systemic Toxicity Study in | ||
| Mice | There was no mortality or evidence | |
| of systemic toxicity from the | ||
| extracts injected into mice. Each | ||
| test article extract met the | ||
| requirements of the study. | Device is non-toxic per the ISO | |
| Systemic Toxicity Study in Mice |
The biocompatibility evaluation included the following tests:
7
| Test | Results | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|
| USP Rabbit Pyrogen Study, | ||
| Material Mediated | No individual rabbit showed a rise | |
| in temperature of ≥ 0.5°C above its | ||
| baseline temperature and the total | ||
| maximum temperature rise of all | ||
| three animals was within | ||
| acceptable USP limits. |
The total rise of rabbit
temperatures during the 3-hour
observation period was within
acceptable USP requirements. The
test article met the requirements
for the absence of pyrogens. | Device is non-pyrogenic per the
Material Mediated Rabbit Pyrogen
Study |
| ASTM Hemolysis | Both the test article in direct
contact with blood and the test
article extract were non-hemolytic. | Device is non-hemolytic per the
ASTM Hemolysis Test |
| Complement Activation Assay
Studies
SC5b-9 Complement Activation
Assay Study | The C3a and SC5b-9
concentrations of the test article
samples were acceptable. All test
method acceptance criteria were
met. | Levels of C3a and SC5b-9 were
acceptable. |
| In Vivo Thromboresistance Study
in Sheep – Jugular Vein, Acute
(Thrombogenicity) | The implantation procedure was
routine and there were no
difficulties encountered with
insertion or placement of the test
device. There was no evidence of
bleeding or complications during
the post-operative implant period.
Minimal thrombus formation was
associated with the control article
and minimal to slight thrombus
formation was associated with the
test article. | Under the conditions of this study,
both test and control articles were
considered thromboresistant. |
All biocompatibility tests completed met the pre-assigned acceptance criteria as specified in the test protocol and in accordance with the requirements of the applicable standards.
Sterilization and Shelf Life:
The EMBOTRAP™ III device is labelled as a single-use, sterile device, with a shelf life of 3 years. The sterilization process for the EMBOTRAP™ III device has been successfully validated and process monitoring controls are in place to assure that the device is EO-sterilized to achieve a minimum SAL of 10-6.
Shelf life studies have been conducted for the EMBOTRAP™ III device and establish that the product and packaging remain functional and sterile for the shelf life period of 3 years.
In Vitro (Bench) Testing:
The results of design verification and validation testing conducted on the EMBOTRAP™ III device demonstrate that it performs as designed, fulfils all pre-determined product performance
8
specification requirements, and is suitable for its intended use. The verification and validation test results demonstrate that EMBOTRAP™ III is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices.
| Characteristic/Test | Method | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|
| System Dimensions | A range of device dimensions were measured using specified measurement tools to verify that the required dimensional specifications were met for the subject device models. | All required specifications were met. |
| Device dimensions are comparable to legally-marketed mechanical thrombectomy devices. The subject device includes a longer overall length and larger diameter. | ||
| Radial Force Testing | Radial force of the subject device models was measured within a range of lumen diameters applicable to the intended vasculature to verify that the device performance specifications have been met. | All required specifications were met. |
| Radial force performance of the subject device is comparable to that of the predicate device. | ||
| Outer Cage Recovery | Expansion characteristics of the self-expanding portion of a representative (worst-case) device model were evaluated by measurement post-multiple loading and deployment cycles. | All required specifications were met. |
| Outer cage recovery performance is comparable to that of the predicate. | ||
| Durability Testing | Damage was evaluated after delivery and withdrawal of the subject device models beyond the recommended number of passes and re-sheathings recommended in the instructions for use. | All required specifications were met. |
| Durability performance of the subject device is comparable to that of the predicate device. | ||
| Full Unit (System) Tensile Testing | The system (full unit) tensile strength of the proximal/distal sections of the device was evaluated post-simulated use. | All required specifications were met. |
| The system tensile strength of the subject device is comparable to that of the predicate device. | ||
| Marker Push Out Force | Evaluated the force required to dislodge riveted markers from a representative device model post-simulated use (all marker locations and push-out directions were assessed). | All required specifications were met. |
| Flexibility & Kink Resistance | Kink resistance of the entire device (shaft and shaped section) was evaluated using a representative worst-case device model, which was wrapped around a series of mandrels of decreasing radii until permanent deformation was observed or until the smallest radius was used. | All required specifications were met. |
| Kink resistance of the subject device is comparable to that of the predicate device. | ||
| Coating Integrity | Coating integrity of the subject device was evaluated on a representative (worst-case) device model by examining the shaft coating | All required specifications were met. |
| Coating integrity of the subject device is comparable to that of the predicate | ||
| Torque Durability | ||
| (Strength) | The effects of torquing the subject | |
| device were evaluated using a | ||
| representative (worst-case) device | ||
| model post-simulated use with the | ||
| device positioned as follows (distal | ||
| end constrained): (a) within the | ||
| microcatheter in a simulated vessel; | ||
| and (b) with the shaped section of | ||
| the device deployed in a simulated | ||
| vessel following retraction of the | ||
| microcatheter. | All required specifications were met. | |
| Torque durability of the subject device | ||
| is comparable to that of the predicate | ||
| device. | ||
| Corrosion Resistance | Representative (worst-case) device | |
| models were subjected to corrosion | ||
| testing to determine resistance to | ||
| corrosion. | All required specifications were met. | |
| Corrosion resistance of the subject | ||
| device is comparable to that of the | ||
| predicate device. | ||
| Tip Flexibility | Tip flexibility was evaluated by | |
| measuring the deflection force of the | ||
| device tip when advanced through a | ||
| microcatheter past its tip and | ||
| deflected against contact plates at | ||
| pre-specified angles. | All required specifications were met. | |
| Tip flexibility of the subject device is | ||
| comparable to that of the predicate | ||
| device. | ||
| Re-sheathing Force | A representative (worst-case) device | |
| model was evaluated in a 0.021" | ||
| microcatheter to determine the force | ||
| required to re-sheath the device. | All required specifications were met. | |
| Re-sheathing force is comparable to | ||
| those recorded for the predicate | ||
| devices. | ||
| Deliverability Force | A representative (worst-case) device | |
| model was evaluated in a tortuous | ||
| track model to determine the force | ||
| required to deliver the subject device | ||
| in a 0.021" microcatheter. | All required specifications were met. | |
| Radiopacity | The worst-case subject device (least | |
| number of radiopaque markers) was | ||
| evaluated in a skull phantom model | ||
| using fluoroscopy. | All required specifications were met. | |
| Radiopacity of the subject device is | ||
| equivalent to, or better than, that of | ||
| the predicate devices tested. | ||
| Clot retrieval and | ||
| performance | ||
| (Simulated Use/Ease of | ||
| Use) | Device performance and ease of use | |
| attributes (including clot retrieval | ||
| performance) were evaluated in | ||
| simulated anatomy for the subject | ||
| devices in relation to the key steps | ||
| involved in the clinical procedure. | All required ease of use performance | |
| specifications were met. | ||
| The subject device effectively | ||
| retrieved clot and restored flow in the | ||
| test model. | ||
| Performance of the subject device | ||
| (including loading, delivery, | ||
| deployment and retrieval) was | ||
| comparable to that of the predicate | ||
| devices tested in an in vitro tortuous | ||
| path anatomical model. | ||
| Physician Usability Study | Device performance and ease of use | |
| attributes were evaluated in | ||
| simulated anatomy for the worst- | ||
| case (largest) subject device model in | ||
| relation to the key steps involved in | ||
| the clinical procedure. | ||
| Performance was compared with the | ||
| predicate device. | The physician usability study | |
| demonstrated that the subject device | ||
| met user needs. |
Device performance was comparable
to that of the predicate device. |
| Delivery and re-sheathing
force during simulated
use
(in a clinically-
representative, full-length
anatomical model) | Delivery and re-sheathing forces
were measured during simulated use
of a representative (worst-case)
device model device in a full-length
anatomical model and compared
with the forces measured for one or
more predicate devices. | Delivery and re-sheathing
performance of the subject device are
comparable to that of the predicate
device. |
| Kink Resistance –
Deployed Shaped Section | Kink resistance of the deployed
shaped section of a representative
(worst-case) device model was
evaluated in a series of bend radii
within a range of vessel lumen
diameters. | Kink resistance of the deployed
shaped section was comparable to
that of the predicate device. |
Specifically, the following in vitro bench tests were performed on the subject device:
simulated use.
9
10
In Vivo (Animal) Studies:
Acute and chronic animal studies have been performed to assess the usability, effectiveness and safety of the EMBOTRAP™ III device compared to the predicate devices in the swine model. Acute performance evaluated on Day 0 showed that the usability and performance of the EMBOTRAP™ III device was equivalent to that of the predicate device tested. Histological evaluation performed on treated vessels after 3 and 28 days demonstrated that the local and end organ tissue response was comparable between the EMBOTRAP™ III device and the predicate devices tested.
Clinical Studies:
No clinical study was performed as there is no change to the indications for use or the fundamental scientific technology for the subject device. Substantial equivalence of the subject device has been established to the predicate device through the results of bench and animal testing.
CONCLUSIONS
Non-clinical studies demonstrate that the EMBOTRAP™ III Revascularization Device is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices.