Search Results

The Meridian Guidewire is indicated for general intravascular use to aid in the selective placement of catheters in the peripheral, visceral, and cerebral vasculature during diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedures.

The Meridian Guidewire is a stainless steel guidewire with a radiopaque, distal coil. The distal portion of the guidewire is hydrophilically coated. Included within the sterile pouch is a torque device to assist in guidewire manipulation and a guidewire introducer to ease the introduction of the guidewire into the catheter hub and/or hemostasis valve.

This 510(k) summary describes a guidewire, which generally undergo non-clinical (bench) testing rather than clinical studies with human participants. Therefore, many of the typical clinical study parameters (like sample size for test sets, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or training set details) are not applicable in the same way they would be for AI/ML-based diagnostic devices.

Here's an analysis based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The core of this submission is demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not necessarily meeting specific numerical performance metrics in a clinical study. The "acceptance criteria" are implied by the similarity to the predicate and the successful completion of non-clinical tests.

Study Details

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable in the context of a clinical test set. The "test set" would be the guidewire itself and its components, subjected to various bench and in vitro tests. The provenance is the manufacturer (Micro Therapeutics dba ev3 Neurovascular, Irvine, CA, USA). All testing would have been conducted in a controlled laboratory environment.

2. 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 for this type of device and submission. "Ground truth" for guidewires is typically established by engineering specifications, material standards, and validated testing protocols, not expert clinical consensus on individual cases.

3. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. Performance is measured against engineering standards and established testing methodologies.

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 document describes a medical device (guidewire), not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive technology.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is not an algorithm.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): For a guidewire, the "ground truth" for performance is based on adherence to design specifications, material properties, biomechanical test results (e.g., tensile strength, torqueability, lubricity), sterility standards, and biocompatibility requirements, all of which are scientifically measured and compared against established benchmarks or the predicate device.

7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This device does not involve a training set as it is not an AI/ML model.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The MTI HyperForm™ Occlusion Balloon Catheters are indicated for use in blood vessels of the peripheral and neuro vasculature where temporary occlusion is desired. These catheters offer (1) a vesscl selective technique of temporary vascular occlusion, which is useful in selectively stopping or controlling blood flow, and (2) for balloonassisted embolization of intracranial aneurysms,

The MTI HyperGlide™ Occlusion Balloon Catheters are indicated for use in blood vessels of the peripheral and neuro vasculature where temporary occlusion is desired. These catheters offer (1) a vessel selective technique of temporary vascular occlusion, which is useful in selectively stopping or controlling blood flow, and (2) for balloonassisted embolization of intracranial aneurysms.

The HyperForm™ Occlusion Balloon Catheter is a single lumen tapered catheter with a non-detachable low inflation pressure compliant balloon attached to the distal end of the catheter. The catheter is designed to track over a 0.010" guidewire, and requires insertion of the guidewire to occlude the catheter shaft lumen to allow inflation of the balloon. Two platinum markers provide angiographic

The provided 510(k) summary for the HyperForm™ and HyperGlide™ Occlusion Balloon Catheters does not include any acceptance criteria or details of a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria related to its performance.

Instead, the submission primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The approach taken is that no new performance data specific to these devices was deemed necessary.

Here's a breakdown based on the information provided:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable, as no new performance testing data is provided or referenced for these specific devices.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable. The basis for equivalence relies on the established performance and safety of predicate devices.

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

• Not applicable, as no new clinical or performance test data requiring expert review for ground truth establishment is presented.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Not applicable, as there is no test set or related adjudication process described.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:

• No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done or reported. The submission does not involve AI assistance or human-in-the-loop performance studies.

6. If a Standalone (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

• Not applicable. This device is a medical catheter, not an algorithm or AI system.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Not applicable. As no new performance or clinical studies were conducted for these devices, there was no ground truth established for them. The safety and effectiveness are inferred from the predicate devices.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML device that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable.

Summary of the Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria (based on the provided document):

The "study" proving the device meets acceptance criteria is primarily a comparison to predicate devices to demonstrate substantial equivalence, rather than direct performance testing of the new devices.

• Mechanism of Proof: The submission aims to prove substantial equivalence by highlighting the shared characteristics with legally marketed predicate devices. The core argument is stated as: "The proposed HyperForm™ and HyperGlide™ Occlusion Balloon Catheters are identical to the predicate devices and use the same basic technology as the predicate devices."
• Key Similarities Listed for Substantial Equivalence:
  • Same intended use (all predicates)
  • Same balloon technology and specifications (all predicates)
  • Same catheter technology and characteristics (all predicates)
  • Same other product technology and specifications (all predicates)
• Predicate Devices:
  • Equinox Occlusion Balloon Catheter (K001237)
  • HyperForm Occlusion Balloon Catheter (K011656) (Note: This suggests an update or re-submission for an existing HyperForm catheter)
  • HyperGlide Occlusion Balloon Catheter (K011526, K090728) (Note: Similar to HyperForm, suggests updates/re-submissions for existing HyperGlide catheters)
• Conclusion: Based on these similarities in intended use, technological characteristics, and prior performance (of the predicate devices), Micro Therapeutics, Inc. (dba ev3 Neurovascular) concluded that the HyperForm™ and HyperGlide™ Occlusion Balloon Catheters are substantially equivalent to the listed predicate devices. The FDA concurred with this determination for market clearance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The HYPERGLIDE Occlusion Balloon System is indicated for use in the blood vessels of the peripheral and neuro vasculature where temporary occlusion is desired. The HYPERGLIDE Occlusion Balloon offers a vessel selective technique of temporary vascular occlusion, which is useful in selectively stopping or controlling blood flow.

The HYPERGLIDE Occlusion Balloon System is a single lumen, open-ended balloon catheter designed for advancement into the vasculature over a 0.010" quidewire. Balloon inflation is accomplished by advancement of the quidewire through the open distal end of the balloon, redirecting inflation media to the balloon through side holes in the catheter wall. The HYPERGLIDE Occlusion Balloon System is currently cleared for commercial distribution in sizes 4x10, 4x15, 4x20, 5x15 and 5x20. The System is packaged with a 0.010" X-pedion™ hydrophilic guidewire, also manufactured by Micro Therapeutics Inc. d/b/a ev3 Neurovascular, and cleared under K982543. The System is packaged in a sterile pouch and is for single use only.

The provided 510(k) summary (K092495) describes a modification to the HYPERGLIDE™ Occlusion Balloon System. This submission pertains to an occlusion balloon catheter, a physical medical device, not an AI/ML or diagnostic software device. Therefore, many of the requested criteria related to AI/ML device studies (such as MRMC studies, training/test sets, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, and standalone performance) are not applicable to this type of submission.

The summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices through nonclinical bench testing.

Here's a breakdown of the applicable information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission states that the device was subjected to various tests to demonstrate substantial equivalence. The specific acceptance criteria themselves are not numerically detailed in this summary; rather, it implies that the new 3mm balloon size met the same performance specifications as the existing cleared sizes.

Study Proving Acceptance Criteria Met:

The study proving the device meets its acceptance criteria is referred to as "various testing" or "nonclinical data". This involved a series of bench tests that are standard for evaluating the mechanical and physical performance of medical devices like occlusion balloon catheters.

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in the summary. For nonclinical bench testing, the sample size would typically refer to the number of devices or components tested for each specific test (e.g., N=10 for burst testing, N=X for fatigue testing). The summary does not provide these specific numbers.
• Data Provenance: The data is nonclinical (bench testing), meaning it was generated in a lab setting, not from patients or animals. Therefore, concepts like "country of origin of the data" or "retrospective/prospective" studies are not applicable.

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

• Not Applicable. This is not an AI/ML or diagnostic study requiring expert adjudication of data. The "ground truth" for these tests are physical measurements and outcomes based on engineering specifications and test protocols (e.g., a balloon either bursts at a certain pressure or it doesn't; its dimensions are X or Y).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable. As mentioned above, this is nonclinical bench testing. The results are typically objectively measured and verified against predetermined engineering specifications, not subject to expert adjudication in the way clinical diagnostic studies are.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

• No. An MRMC study is relevant to diagnostic interpretation by human readers, often with and without AI assistance, using clinical images/cases. This submission is for a physical medical device (balloon catheter), not a diagnostic tool, and involves no human interpretation of data for diagnostic purposes in the context of this submission.
• Effect Size of Human Readers Improvement with AI vs. without AI Assistance: Not Applicable.

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

• No. "Standalone performance" in this context refers to AI algorithm performance. This device is not an algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Engineering Specifications and Test Protocols: The "ground truth" for the nonclinical tests would be the established engineering specifications for the device (e.g., a minimum burst pressure, maximum inflation/deflation time, specific dimensional tolerances). The actual test results are then compared against these objective criteria.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

• Not Applicable. There is no "training set" for this type of submission.

Ask a specific question about this device