Search Results

The Distal Access Catheter is indicated for the introduction of interventional devices into the peripheral and neurovasculature.

The Distal Access Catheter is a single lumen, flexible, variable stiffness composite catheter which has a luer hub on the proximal end. The catheter shaft has a hydrophilic coating to reduce friction during use. The Distal Access Catheter has a radiopaque marker on the distal tip that is visible under fluoroscopy. The Distal Access Catheter inner lumen can accommodate guidewires up to 0.038 inches in diameter to aid in placement of the catheter system. The catheter has a straight tip. The catheter is offered in various lengths to accommodate physician preferences and anatomical variations. The catheter is provided sterile, nonpyrogenic, and is intended for single use only.

The provided text describes information for a Distal Access Catheter, specifically related to its 510(k) premarket notification for FDA clearance. It details the device's characteristics, intended use, and comparisons to a predicate device, along with non-clinical performance testing (bench testing, biocompatibility, sterility, and shelf-life).

However, the prompt asks for acceptance criteria and a study that proves a device meets acceptance criteria, with specific questions related to AI/Machine Learning (ML) performance, such as:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance.
2. Sample size used for the test set and data provenance.
3. Number of experts used to establish ground truth and their qualifications.
4. Adjudication method for the test set.
5. If a multi-reader, multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done and its effect size.
6. If a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was done.
7. The type of ground truth used.
8. The sample size for the training set.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established.

The provided FDA 510(k) document is for a physical medical device (catheter) and does NOT describe any AI/ML components or studies. Therefore, it does not contain the information necessary to answer the questions about AI/ML acceptance criteria, test sets, ground truth establishment, or clinical studies involving AI.

Based on the provided document, here is a summary of acceptance criteria and performance for the physical device:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (for the physical catheter)

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document lists various non-clinical (bench) tests and biocompatibility tests. The "Result" column effectively indicates whether the device met the pre-defined acceptance criteria for each test.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• The document describes bench testing and biocompatibility testing only. It does not mention any clinical data, patient data, retrospective, or prospective studies.
• The sample sizes for these tests are not explicitly stated in numerical values (e.g., "n=X units were tested"), but implied by "test articles," "devices," or descriptions like "all bonding points."

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)

• This question is irrelevant for the provided document as it concerns a physical catheter, not an AI/ML product requiring "ground truth" from experts interpreting medical images or data. The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by objective engineering and biocompatibility test standards and measurements.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• This question is irrelevant for the provided document as it concerns a physical catheter, not an AI/ML product requiring clinical adjudication of interpretations.

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 MRMC or any clinical effectiveness studies were performed or described. The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies were deemed necessary to demonstrate substantial equivalence."

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

• Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

• For the physical device, the "ground truth" is defined by established engineering standards (e.g., ISO standards), physical measurements, chemical analyses, and biological assays. It's not based on expert clinical consensus or pathology in the context of diagnostic interpretation.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/ML product that undergoes "training."

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/ML product.

Ask a specific question about this device