Search Results

The Aspire RX-LP6 Aspiration Catheter and Aspirator are indicated for the removal of fresh, soft emboli and thrombi from vessels in the coronary and peripheral vasculature.

An "Aspire RX-LP6 Aspiration Catheter" includes (1) RX-LP6 Aspiration Catheter and (1) Aspire Aspirator 30ml.

• Aspire RX-LP6 Aspiration Catheters (RX-LP6 Aspiration Catheter and Aspire Aspirator): 6F -Guide Cath compatible rapid exchange catheter with 4.8mm long distal aspiration opening, 1.0mm wide distal and 1.1mm wide proximal aspiration lumen, 0.054" outer diameter (OD) single lumen aspiration shaft, and removable stylet.
• Aspire Aspirator 30ml. -

Aspire RX-LP6 Aspiration Catheters are single-use, sterile, short-term use, and non-pyrogenic medical devices designed for use with piston syringes to remove fresh, soft emboli and thrombi from the peripheral and coronary vasculature. The Aspire RX-LP6 Aspiration Catheter operating and scientific principle is the same as predicate devices. The catheter is inserted into the body over a guidewire and through a sheath or guide catheter to the target anatomy. A syringe is then connected to the catheter and the aspiration is manually created with the syringe.

Similar to predicate devices, industry standard intravascular catheter components and materials are used:

• -Clear proximal polycarbonate female luer lock,
• Stainless steel core wire. -
• Clear Main Shafts, -
• Embedded platinum iridium radiopaque marker, -
• Clear polycarbonate barrel piston syringe. -

Aspire RX-LP6 Aspiration Catheters do not add any new materials, or manufacturing processes to the manufacturing process.

Same as predicates, all RX-LP6 Aspiration Catheters may be connected to piston syringes including the Aspire Mechanical Aspirator. Aspirators may be connected to other catheters to aspirate fluids and thrombus.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Aspire RX-LP6 Aspiration Catheter, based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The FDA 510(k) summary primarily focuses on confirming the device's equivalence to predicate devices and adherence to recognized standards. It doesn't explicitly list numerical acceptance criteria with corresponding performance metrics for all tests in a single table, but rather states that the device "passes all testing and meets specifications." For some categories, it lists the types of tests performed.

Here's an aggregated table based on the non-clinical testing section:

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document does not specify the exact sample sizes used for each non-clinical test. It generally states that "testing confirms the suitability" and "subject devices passed all biocompatible tests," implying sufficient samples were used for each test performed.
• Data Provenance: The data is from non-clinical testing (bench testing, in vitro testing, etc.) conducted by the manufacturer, Control Medical Technology, LLC. It appears to be prospective for the device being evaluated, as it describes tests specifically performed on the Aspire RX-LP6 Aspiration Catheter. There is no mention of country of origin for the data for these specific tests, but the company is US-based (Utah).

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

This information is not applicable as the study did not involve human interpretation or subjective assessment that would require "experts" to establish ground truth. The "ground truth" for non-clinical tests is based on objective measurements and established scientific standards/methods.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as the testing was non-clinical and did not involve human adjudication for a test set.

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

This information is not applicable. The device is an aspiration catheter, not an AI-powered diagnostic or interpretive tool. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance was not performed.

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

This information is not applicable. The device is a physical medical device (catheter and aspirator), not an algorithm or software. Its performance is evaluated through non-clinical bench testing and in vivo aspiration, rather than as a standalone algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for the non-clinical tests was established by:

• Objective Measurements: Such as dimensional inspections, force measurements (tensile strength, kink, torque), and aspiration volumes/effectiveness.
• Established Scientific Standards and Guidance: Adherence to ISO standards (e.g., ISO 10555-1, ISO 7886-1, AAMI/ANSI/ISO 11135, ISO 10993 series) and USP standards (e.g., USP , USP ), which define acceptable performance parameters and test methodologies.
• Comparison to Predicate Devices: Performance was also deemed acceptable by demonstrating equivalence to "currently marketed Pronto, Export, and Xpress-Way aspiration systems" based on comparable results in aspiration efficacy and other performance characteristics.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. The Aspire RX-LP6 Aspiration Catheter is a physical medical device, not an AI model requiring a training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

This information is not applicable for the same reason as above; there is no training set for a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Aspire MAX 5 and MAX 6 Aspiration Catheters and Aspirator are indicated for the removal of fresh, soft emboli and thrombi from vessels in the peripheral vasculature.

An Aspire MAX Aspiration Catheter includes (1) Aspire MAX 6 Aspiration Catheter and (1) Aspirator 30ml. Aspire MAX Aspiration Catheters and MAX Aspiration Catheters are single-use, sterile, short-term use, and non-pyrogenic medical devices designed for use with manually operated piston syringes to remove fresh, soft emboli and thrombi from the peripheral and coronary vasculature. The Aspire MAX Aspiration Catheter operating and scientific principle is the same as predicate devices. The catheter is inserted into the body over a guidewire and through a sheath or guide catheter to the target anatomy. A piston syringe is then connected to the catheter and the aspiration is manually created with the piston syringe.

Similar to predicate devices, industry standard intravascular catheter components and materials are used:

• Clear proximal polycarbonate female luer lock,
• -Stainless steel braid,
• Clear Pebax and Vestamid Shafts, -
• -Embedded platinum iridium radiopaque marker,
• Clear polycarbonate barrel piston syringe. -

Aspire MAX Aspiration Catheters do not add any new materials, manufacturing processes, colorants, or dyes to the manufacturing process.

Same as predicates, all MAX Aspiration Catheters may be connected to piston syringes including the Aspire Aspirator. Aspirators may be connected to other aspiration catheters.

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the Aspire MAX Aspiration Catheter. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving a new device's absolute safety and effectiveness through extensive clinical trials as would be required for a PMA (Premarket Approval) device. Therefore, the information provided for acceptance criteria and study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria is framed within the context of substantial equivalence testing and non-clinical performance, rather than a clinical study with human patients.

Based on the document, here's a breakdown of the requested information:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (Non-Clinical)

The document does not present a formal table of "acceptance criteria" with specific quantitative thresholds for clinical performance metrics (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, or clinical outcome improvements). Instead, the acceptance criteria are implicit in demonstrating substantial equivalence to legally marketed predicate devices through a series of non-clinical tests and comparisons of design, materials, and operating principles.

The "Device Performance" is demonstrated by passing these non-clinical tests, indicating the device functions as intended and is comparable to predicate devices.

Table of Comparison (derived from the document):

Study Details:

This submission relies on non-clinical testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence, not a clinical study. Therefore, some of the requested information (like expert consensus for ground truth or MRMC studies) is not applicable in this context.

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • The document does not explicitly state "sample sizes" in terms of number of devices tested for each non-clinical test. It states "Non-clinical testing confirms the Aspiration Catheters and Aspirator passes all testing and meets specifications."
   • Data Provenance: The tests were conducted as part of the regulatory submission process for the device manufacturer, Control Medical Technology. The location of the testing facilities (e.g., Ethox and Nelson Labs mentioned for biocompatibility) would likely be in the US, but this is not explicitly stated as the origin of data.
   • Retrospective or Prospective: The testing was prospective, specifically conducted for this 510(k) submission.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • Not applicable. This was a non-clinical testing submission for substantial equivalence. "Ground truth" in this context refers to the defined specifications and parameters of the tests (e.g., tensile strength, aspiration volume, particulate limits) which are derived from industry standards (e.g., ISO, AAMI) and predicate device characteristics, not expert clinical consensus on patient data.

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

   • Not applicable. As this was non-clinical testing, there was no adjudication of expert opinions. Test results are objectively measured against defined specifications.

4. 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:

   • Not applicable. This is a medical device (catheter and aspirator), not an AI/imaging device, and no clinical study was performed. The concept of "human readers" and "AI assistance" is not relevant to this submission.

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

   • Not applicable. This is a physical medical device.

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

   • The "ground truth" for this 510(k) submission is established by engineering specifications, performance metrics derived from industry standards (ISO), and the characteristics of predicate devices that have already been legally marketed. For example, catheter dimensions, material properties, aspiration volume, and leak integrity are measured and compared against established parameters or the performance of predicate devices.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that involves a training set. The device design and manufacturing process are established through engineering and validated through non-clinical testing.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable. No training set was involved.

Ask a specific question about this device