Search Results

The Rist™ 079 Radial Access Guide Catheter is indicated for the introduction of interventional devices into the peripheral, coronary, and neuro vasculature.

The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter is indicated for the introduction of interventional devices into the peripheral, coronary, and neuro vasculature.

The Rist™ Radial Access Selective Catheter is indicated for the introduction of interventional devices into the peripheral, coronary, and neuro vasculature. It can be used to facilitate introduction of diagnostic agents in the neuro vasculature. It is not intended to facilitate introduction of diagnostic agents in coronary or peripheral arteries.

The Rist™ Radial Access Selective Catheter is a flexible, single lumen catheter, with a radiopaque stainless-steel braid reinforced shaft to provide support. The distal tip of the catheter is shaped to have a smooth, rounded tip and is offered in two different distal segment shapes: Simmons 2 (SIM2) and Berenstein (BER). The braided, tapered shaft of the catheter is visible under fluoroscopy and has a luer connector in its proximal end for the attachment of accessories and the infusion of fluids. The Rist™ Radial Access Selective Catheter has no hydrophilic coating. The Rist™ Radial Access Selective Catheter is supplied sterile, non-pyrogenic, and intended for single use only.

The Rist™ 079 Radial Access Guide Catheter is a single lumen, variable stiffness catheter with a stainless steel and nitinol reinforced shaft to provide support. The catheter has a radiopaque marker band on the distal end to aid in visualization. The distal 25 cm of the Rist™ 079 Radial Access Guide Catheter has a hydrophilic coating which reduces the insertion force and allows the catheter to traverse the vasculature more easily. The Rist™ 079 Radial Access Guide Catheter has a PTFE-lined lumen to reduce friction with other devices introduced through the lumen. It is intended to provide access to the target site via transradial access and, once in place, provides a reinforcing conduit for other intravascular devices. A radial access dilator is included as an accessory. The Rist™ 079 Radial Access Guide Catheter is supplied sterile, non-pyrogenic, and intended for single use only.

The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter is a single lumen, variable stiffness catheter with a stainless steel and nitinol reinforced shaft to provide support. The embedded stainless-steel flat wire cross coil is in the proximal section of the catheter, which transitions to a nitinol round wire single coil in the distal end. The catheter has a radiopaque platinum/iridium marker band on to aid in visualization. The distal 25 cm of the Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter has a hydrophilic coating which reduces the insertion force and allows the catheter to traverse the vasculature more easily. The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter has a PTFE- lined lumen to reduce friction with other devices introduced through the lumen. It is intended to provide access to the target site via transradial access and, once in place, provides a reinforcing conduit for other intravascular devices. A radial access dilator is included as an accessory. The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter is supplied sterile, non-pyrogenic, and intended for single use only.

Despite the request for a detailed description of acceptance criteria and study information, the provided text does not contain information related to specific acceptance criteria, device performance metrics, or a study report in the context of AI/ML device evaluation.

The document is an FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification for a medical device (catheters), not an AI/ML diagnostic or prognostic system. Therefore, the questions about sample size for test sets, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth types, and training set details are not applicable to the content provided.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of the subject catheters to predicate devices, primarily based on design features, indications for use, and bench testing.

Here's a summary of what is available in the document, which addresses some points but not in the context of AI/ML performance evaluation:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document states that:

• Acceptance Criteria (Implied): The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the standards outlined in ANSI/AAMI HE75:2009/(R) 2018. The document does not provide the specific numerical or qualitative acceptance criteria used within this standard for the "In-vitro Simulated Use Study."
• Reported Device Performance: The reported performance is a high-level statement: "The devices met the acceptance criteria." Specific metrics, ranges, or quantitative results are not provided.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
Not applicable, as this was a bench test and not an AI/ML study involving patient data.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
Not applicable. Ground truth establishment for medical images by experts is not relevant to this bench testing of physical catheter devices.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
Not applicable.

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:
Not applicable. This is not an AI-assisted device.

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

7. The type of ground truth used:
For the "In-vitro Simulated Use Study," the "ground truth" would be the successful completion of tasks or performance within acceptable parameters as defined by the ANSI/AAMI HE75:2009/(R) 2018 standard for simulated use. This is a technical performance standard, not a clinical ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set:
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

In summary, the provided text describes regulatory approval for physical medical devices (catheters) based on substantial equivalence and bench testing, not an AI/ML-driven device that would require the in-depth data and performance metrics requested in the prompt.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Riptide™ Aspiration Pump is intended as a vacuum source for Medtronic aspiration devices or systems for use in hospitals or clinics. Refer to the Instructions for Use included with the accessory aspiration device for indications related to the procedure for which this device will be used.

The Riptide™ Aspiration Pump is an externally powered electromechanical device capable of generating a vacuum designed for drawing fluids and thrombus into the Riptide™ Collection Canister during interventional procedures. It is intended for general suction use in hospitals or clinics and is not intended for transport or field applications. The Riptide™ Aspiration Pump includes a receptacle that holds the Riptide™ Collection Canister with Intermediate Tubing in place. The intermediate tubing is connected to the vacuum inlet port.

The Riptide™ Aspiration Pump package includes the following:

• Riptide™ Aspiration Pump (LMT-RAP)
• Region specific power cord for connection to earthed receptacle.
• Riptide™ Aspiration Pump User's Manual

The following item is required for use with Riptide™ Aspiration Pump (packaged separately):

• Riptide™ Collection Canister with Intermediate Tubing (LMT-RCT)

The Riptide™ Collection Canister is provided non-sterile and is pre-assembled with the Intermediate Tubing. The Riptide™ Collection Canister with Intermediate Tubing is single use. The Riptide™ Collection Canister is the repository for aspirated material. The Riptide™ Canister is placed into the receptacle of the Riptide™ Aspiration Pump as shown in Figure 3. The Intermediate Tubing is then connected to the vacuum inlet port.

Here's an analysis of the Riptide™ Aspiration Pump's acceptance criteria and the study proving it, based on the provided document:

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than comprehensive de novo clinical trial data. Therefore, the device's acceptance criteria are framed in terms of meeting established standards and matching the performance of a legally marketed predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for the Riptide™ Aspiration Pump are primarily based on compliance with international standards for medical electrical equipment and medical suction equipment, as well as demonstrating equivalent performance to the predicate device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Riptide™ Aspiration System is intended for use in the revascularization of patients with acute ischemic stroke secondary to intracranial large vessel occlusive disease (within the internal carotid, middle cerebral M1 and M2 segments, basilar, and vertebral arteries) within 8 hours of symptom onset. Patients who are ineligible for thrombolytic drug therapy or who failed thrombolytic drug therapy are candidates for treatment.

The Riptide™ Aspiration System is designed to restore blood flow in patients with acute ischemic stroke secondary to intracranial large vessel occlusive disease within the internal carotid, middle cerebral – M1 and M2 segments, basilar, and vertebral arteries, using continuous aspiration. The Riptide™ Aspiration System is composed of the following components and illustrated in Figure 1:

• 1. React™ 68 Catheter (REACT-68), React™ 71 Catheter (REACT-71, REACT-71-115, REACT-71-125)
• 2. Riptide™ Large Bore Aspiration Tubing (MAT-110-110)
• 3. Riptide™ Aspiration Pump (MAP-1000)
• 4. Riptide™ Collection Canister with Intermediate Tubing (MAC-1200)

The provided text is a 510(k) Summary for the Riptide™ Aspiration System, which details the device's characteristics and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, this document does not describe a study involving acceptance criteria for algorithmic performance, expert ground truth adjudication, or human reader effectiveness studies. Instead, it focuses on non-clinical bench testing to demonstrate compliance with safety and performance standards for a physical medical device (catheter system).

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding AI/algorithm performance and clinical study details cannot be extracted from this document because it does not pertain to such a device or study.

Here's what can be extracted based on the nature of the document:

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

The document lists various bench tests with pass/fail results. While these are performance metrics related to safety and functionality, they are for a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm.

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

This information is not applicable as the document describes bench testing of a physical device, not a performance study on a software algorithm with a test set of data.

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)

Not applicable. Ground truth as typically defined for AI/software evaluations is not mentioned. The "design validation" tests refer to compliance with guidance and standards, not expert clinical interpretation of data.

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

Not applicable. No adjudication method for a test set of data is described.

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

Not applicable. This is not a study assessing AI assistance or human reader performance.

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

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

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

Not applicable. The document refers to "non-clinical bench testing" and compliance with international standards (IEC, ISO) and FDA guidance for the safety and performance of the physical device components.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. There is no mention of a training set as this is not a machine learning device.

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

Not applicable. There is no mention of a training set or ground truth establishment relevant to an algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The React™ 71 Catheter is indicated for the introduction of interventional devices into the peripheral and neuro vasculature.

The React™ 71 Catheter is a single lumen, flexible, variable stiffness composite catheter with a nitinol structure that is jacketed with various durable polymer outer layers. A lubricious, polytetrafluoroethylene liner and Engage™ inner layer is used to create a structure that has both proximal stiffness and distal flexibility. The React™ 71 Catheter is also designed with an encapsulated radiopaque distal platinumiridium marker band which is used for visualization under fluoroscopy. The React™ 71 Catheter is introduced into the vasculature through the Split-Y Introducer Sheath. The proximal end of the React™ 71 Catheter is designed with a green thermoplastic elastomer strain relief and a clear hub. The distal end of the React™ 71 Catheter is coated with a Surmodics Serene™ Coating.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the React™ 71 Catheter, focusing on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device after a change in device length. The information primarily covers non-clinical bench testing.

Here's an analysis of the provided information against your requested categories:

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

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated. The text mentions "non-clinical bench testing was conducted," but does not provide details on the number of devices tested for each criterion.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. "Non-clinical bench testing" typically implies laboratory-based tests. The country of origin of the data is not mentioned. The data is prospective in the sense that new tests were conducted for this submission, but it's not clinical human data.

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 section is not applicable as the study described is non-clinical bench testing, not a study involving human or animal data requiring expert ground truth for interpretation.

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

This section is not applicable as the study described is non-clinical bench testing against predefined performance criteria, not a study involving subjective interpretations requiring adjudication.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This submission is for a percutaneous catheter, not an AI-powered diagnostic device.

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

No, a standalone algorithm performance study was not done. This submission is for a physical medical device (catheter), not an algorithm or software.

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

For the non-clinical bench tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the acceptance criteria established in the test methods, based on FDA Guidance 1757 and FDA Recognized Consensus Standards 5-125 & 5-129. These are objective engineering and performance standards, not clinical ground truths like pathology or expert consensus.

8. The sample size for the training set

This section is not applicable. This is a 510(k) submission for a physical medical device, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a training set.

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

This section is not applicable for the reasons stated in point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

Axium™ Detachable Coil:

Axium™ Detachable Coils are intended for the endovascular embolization of intracranial aneurysms. Axium™ Detachable Coils are also intended for the embolization of other neuro vascular abnormalities such as arteriovenous malformations and arteriovenous fistulae.

Axium™ Prime Detachable Coil:

(Models: APB-X-Y-3D-ES, APB-X-Y-3D-SS, APB-X-Y-HX-ES, APB-X-Y-HX-SS)

The Axium™ Prime Detachable Coils are intended for the endovascular embolization of intracranial aneurysms. The Axium™ Prime Detachable Coils are also intended for the embolization of other neuro vascular abnormalities such as arteriovenous malformations and arteriovenous fistulae.

Axium™ Prime Detachable Coil:

(Models: FC-X-Y-3D)

The Axium™ Prime Detachable Col is intended for the endovascular embolization of intracranial aneurysms and other neurovascular abnormalities, such as arteriovenous malformations and arteriovenous fistulae. The Axium™ Prime Detachable Coils are also intended for arterial and venous embolizations in the peripheral vasculature.

The Axium™ Detachable Coil and Axium™ Prime Detachable Coil consist of a platinum embolization coil attached to a composite implant delivery pusher with a radiopaque positioning marker and a hand-held Instant Detacher (I.D.) which when activated detaches the coil from the delivery pusher tip. The I.D. is sold separately.

The document provided focuses on the substantial equivalence of the "Axium™ Detachable Coil" and "Axium™ Prime Detachable Coil" with the addition of fluorosafe markers. The primary purpose of the submission is to demonstrate that these changes do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness compared to the predicate devices. Therefore, the "device" in question is not an AI/ML powered diagnostic device, but rather a neurovascular embolization device with a minor design change.

As such, many of the typical acceptance criteria and study details relevant to AI/ML powered devices, such as sample size for test sets, data provenance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training set details, are not applicable or provided in this document. The provided text describes bench testing and biocompatibility testing for the physical device itself.

However, I can extract the relevant "acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance" as presented for the specific tests conducted for this submission.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for each test, but standard for device verification and validation. For biocompatibility, animal models were used (guinea pig, rabbit, mice). For bench tests, "devices" (plural) were evaluated, implying a sample size greater than one but not specified numerically.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of AI/ML data sets. These are laboratory tests on physical devices.

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)

• Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device modification is established through physical and objective measures against predefined specifications and recognized international standards (e.g., ISO 10993, USP 151) and user needs (for marker visibility). The "clinical users" who evaluated fluorosafe marker visibility are mentioned, but their number and specific qualifications are not detailed.

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

• Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically for subjective assessments (e.g., image interpretation). These tests involve objective measurements and evaluations against specified criteria and standards.

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

• Not applicable. This submission is for a physical medical device (embolization coil) with a minor design change (adding fluorosafe markers), not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. No MRMC study was conducted.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an algorithm or AI device.

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

• The "ground truth" here is based on objective measurements against established engineering specifications, chemical/biological compatibility standards (ISO 10993, USP 151), and documented user needs. For example, meeting the criteria for "non-cytotoxic" or demonstrating "no corrosion."

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."

Ask a specific question about this device

The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter is indicated for the introduction of interventional devices into the peripheral, coronary, and neuro vasculature.

The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter is a single lumen, variable stiffness catheter with a stainless steel and nitinol reinforced shaft to provide support. The embedded stainless-steel flat wire cross coil is in the proximal section of the catheter, which transitions to a nitinol round wire single coil in the distal end. The catheter has a radiopaque platinum/iridium marker band on the distal end to aid in visualization. The distal 25 cm of the Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter has a hydrophilic coating which reduces the insertion force and allows the catheter to traverse the vasculature more easily. The catheter has a nominal outer diameter of 0.084 inches and a nominal inner diameter of 0.071 inches. It is available in three working lengths: 95 cm, 100 cm, and 105 cm. The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter has a PTFE-lined lumen to reduce friction with other devices introduced through the lumen. It is intended to provide access to the target site via transradial access and, once in place, provides a reinforcing conduit for other intravascular devices. A radial access dilator is included as an accessory. The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter is supplied sterile, non-pyrogenic, and intended for single use only.

The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter is a medical device intended for the introduction of interventional devices into the peripheral, coronary, and neuro vasculature. The acceptance criteria and supporting studies are detailed below.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The device underwent extensive testing, and the results consistently indicated that "All units met the acceptance criteria" or similar statements. Specific numerical acceptance criteria were not explicitly provided in the document for most tests, but the qualitative statement of meeting criteria is present.

2. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for each specific test in the "Test Set." However, it repeatedly mentions "All units" or "All units met" indicating that a sufficient number of samples were tested to achieve statistical significance or to demonstrate compliance.

The data provenance is not specified in terms of country of origin. The studies are described as "Design verification and validation" (in-house testing) and based on applicable ISO/ASTM/USP standards, suggesting a laboratory-based, prospective testing approach. No mention of retrospective or prospective clinical data for the test set is present, as this is a pre-market submission focused on device performance rather than clinical outcomes.

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

For the "In vitro Simulated Use Study," it states that "A simulated interventional procedure was performed by physicians." The exact number of physicians or their specific qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience") are not provided.

For the "Radiopacity" test (from the predicate device), "Physicians were shown fluoroscopic images." Again, the specific number and qualifications of these physicians are not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any formal adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the tests. The results indicate a direct pass/fail or "met acceptance criteria" outcome, implying consensus on the directly measurable or observable results rather than a subjective assessment requiring adjudication. For physician-evaluated tests, the document indicates a general 'acceptance criteria met' without detailing disagreement resolution.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was mentioned. The studies focused on device performance characteristics rather than comparing human reader performance with or without AI assistance. The device itself is a physical catheter, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

6. Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Study

No standalone algorithm performance study was done. This is consistent with the nature of the device as a physical medical instrument, not a software algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for most performance tests was established by adherence to recognized international standards (ISO, ASTM, USP) and predefined internal specifications for various physical, chemical, and biological properties. This includes:

• Physical Measurements: Dimensional accuracy (ID, OD, length), tensile strength metrics, burst pressure values, torque limits, kink resistance thresholds.
• Chemical/Biological Properties: Biocompatibility assays (cytotoxicity, sensitization, irritation, systemic toxicity, pyrogenicity, hemocompatibility), chemical compatibility.
• Functional Performance: Leak testing, coating integrity, particulate count, simulated use performance, radiopacity (as confirmed by physicians).
• Sterility and Packaging Integrity: Demonstrated through sterilization validation and packaging tests.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

No training set is applicable or mentioned. This device is a physical medical device, not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable as there is no training set for a physical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Axium™ Detachable Coils are intended for the endovascular embolization of intracranial aneurysms. Axium™ Detachable Coils are also intended for the embolization of other neuro vascular abnormalities such as arteriovenous malformations and arteriovenous fistulae.

The Axium™ Prime Detachable Coils are intended for the endovascular embolization of intracranial anewrysms. The Axium™ Prime Detachable Coils are also intended for the embolization of other neuro vascular abnormalities such as arteriovenous malformations and arteriovenous fistulae.

The Axium™ Prime Detachable Coil is intended for the endovascular embolization of intracranial aneurysms and other neurovascular abnormalities, such as arteriovenous malformations and arteriovenous fistulae. The Axium™ Prime Detachable Coils are also intended for arterial and venous embolizations in the peripheral vasculature.

The Axium™ Detachable Coil and Axium™ Prime Detachable Coil (referred to collectively as "Axium™ device family"), consists of a platinum embolization coil attached to a composite implant delivery pusher with a radiopaque positioning marker and a hand-held Instant Detacher (I.D.) which when activated detaches the coil from the delivery pusher tip. The Instant Detacher (I.D.) is sold separately.

This document does not describe an AI/ML device and therefore does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and studies for AI/ML device performance.

The document is a 510(k) premarket notification summary for the Axium™ Detachable Coil and Axium™ Prime Detachable Coil, which are neurovascular embolization devices. It describes a proposed change to the labeling concerning the accessory sheath (from femoral to arterial, allowing radial access) and the removal of certain peripheral vasculature indications for specific models.

The performance data presented are for bench testing of the physical device (e.g., ease of delivery, detachment reliability, retractability, retrieval) and explicitly states:

• "The determination of substantial equivalence is based upon non-clinical bench testing as there is no change to the intended use, fundamental scientific technology, or materials of construction." (Regarding animal and clinical data).

Therefore, I cannot provide details on:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance for an AI/ML device.
2. Sample sizes for test sets or data provenance for AI/ML model evaluation.
3. Number and qualifications of experts for AI/ML ground truth.
4. Adjudication methods for AI/ML test sets.
5. MRMC studies or human reader improvement with AI assistance.
6. Standalone performance of an algorithm.
7. Type of ground truth used for AI/ML.
8. Sample size for AI/ML training set.
9. How ground truth for an AI/ML training set was established.

Ask a specific question about this device

1. The Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device is indicated for use to restore blood flow in the neurovasculature by removing thrombus for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke to reduce disability in patients with a persistent, proximal anterior circulation, large vessel occlusion, and smaller core infarcts who have first received intravenous tissue plasogen activator (IV t-PA). Endovascular therapy with the device should be started within 6 hours of symptom onset.

2. The Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device is indicated 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 IV t-PA or who fail IV t-PA therapy are candidates for treatment.

3. The Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device is indicated for use to restore blood flow in the neurovasculature by removing thrombus for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke to reduce disability in patients with a persistent, proximal anterior circulation, large vessel occlusion of the internal carotid artery (ICA) or middle cerebral artery (MCA)-M1 segments with smaller core infarcts (

The subject 3 mm Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device is designed to restore blood flow in patients experiencing ischemic stroke due to large intracranial vessel occlusion. The subject 3 mm Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device is designed for use in the neurovasculature such as the Internal Carotid Artery (ICA), M1 and M2 segments of the middle cerebral artery, basilar, and the vertebral arteries. The distal nitinol portion of the subject 3 mm Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device facilitates clot retrieval and has Platinum/Iridium radiopaque markers on the proximal and distal ends. The subject 3 mm Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device also features radiopaque markers along the circumference of the working length of the devices are supplied sterile and are intended for single- use only.

The Solitaire X Revascularization Device is designed to restore blood flow by removing thrombus in patients experiencing ischemic stroke. The device, specifically the 3mm variant, underwent several tests to demonstrate its performance and safety, leading to its substantial equivalence determination.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

The document mentions a retrospective analysis of vessel sizes using the STRATIS registry data as a "clinical" study to support substantial equivalence. While it explicitly states this, it does not provide the sample size of this retrospective analysis.

• Data Provenance: The STRATIS registry data was "previously submitted in K193576," suggesting it's existing, likely multi-center, clinical trial or registry data. The country of origin is not specified but is likely international, given the nature of major stroke registries. It is retrospective.

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

The document does not provide information on the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth for the retrospective analysis of vessel sizes. Given it's a "retrospective analysis of vessel sizes," the ground truth would likely be based on imaging reports and clinical assessments already documented in the STRATIS registry by the original clinicians and radiologists involved in the patient care and data collection.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

The document does not specify an adjudication method for the retrospective analysis. As it relies on existing registry data, the "ground truth" would implicitly be the clinical diagnoses and measurements recorded at the time of the original study or patient care within the STRATIS registry.

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:

The document does not describe an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with or without AI assistance. The described "clinical" study is a retrospective analysis of vessel sizes, not an evaluation of AI assistance for human readers.

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

The document does not describe a standalone performance study of an algorithm. The Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device is a physical mechanical thrombectomy device, not an AI or software algorithm. The "clinical" study mentioned is a retrospective analysis of vessel sizes, likely performed to understand the distribution of vessel sizes relevant to the device's application, rather than to evaluate an algorithm's performance.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

For the retrospective analysis, the ground truth would inherently be

• Imaging measurements and clinical diagnoses documented within the STRATIS registry data. This would include measurements of vessel sizes and characterization of occlusions based on imaging (e.g., CTA, MRA) and patient outcomes. It's a form of outcomes data and expert-reported imaging findings from the original clinical context.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

The document does not mention a training set for an algorithm. The Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device is a physical medical device, not a machine learning model that requires training data.

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

As there is no mention of a training set for an algorithm, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

Phenom™ Catheters are intended for the introduction of interventional devices or diagnostic agents into the neuro, peripheral, and coronary vasculatures.

The Phenom™ Catheters are variable stiffness, single lumen catheters designed to access small, tortuous vasculature. They are available in a variety of lengths, stiffness and inner and outer diameters. The outer surface of the catheter is coated to enhance navigation in the vessel. The Phenom™ 17, 21, and 27 Catheters have a hydrophilic coating that spans the distal 100cm. The Phenom™ Plus Catheters have a hydrophilic coating that spans the distal 90cm. The catheter also incorporates a liner to facilitate movement of introduction devices passing through its lumen. The distal tip has radiopaque marker(s) to aid visualization and positioning under fluoroscopy. The Phenom™ Catheter is packaged with a shaping mandrel and may be accompanied with a split introducer sheath.

The provided text describes the regulatory clearance for the "Phenom Catheters" and includes performance data from bench testing. However, it does not describe any study involving AI, human readers, or the establishment of ground truth for such a study. Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for information related to AI or human-in-the-loop performance.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through non-clinical bench testing. There is no mention of acceptance criteria or performance metrics in the context of an AI-based device, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) study, or standalone algorithm performance.

Here's a breakdown of the information that is present in the document, framed against your request:

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

The document provides a table of "Tests" with "Test Method Summary" and "Results." The "Results" column implicitly indicates that the acceptance criteria were met for each test, as it states "The Phenom™ Catheters met the acceptance criteria for..." or "acceptable friction force," "compatible for use," etc.

Regarding the other points of your request, the document does not provide this information because it's for a medical device (catheter) and not an AI-based system:

• 2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. The testing described is bench testing of physical devices, not a test set of data.
• 3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for data interpretation is not relevant for this type of device submission.
• 4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
• 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: Not applicable. This device is not an AI system.
• 6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This device is not an algorithm.
• 7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable. The "ground truth" for the catheter is its ability to perform according to engineering specifications and biocompatibility standards.
• 8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI model requiring a training set.
• 9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided document details the regulatory clearance of a physical medical device (catheter) based on non-clinical performance and biocompatibility testing, not an AI software/device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Rebar™ Micro Catheter is intended for the delivery of interventional devices or contrast media into the vasculature of the peripheral and neuro anatomy.

The Rebar" Micro Catheter is an endhole, single-lumen catheter designed to be introduced over a steerable guidewire into the vasculature. The proximal end of the catheter incorporates a standard luer adapter to facilitate the attachment of accessories. The catheter has a semi-rigid proximal shaft which transitions into the flexible distal shaft to facilitate the advancement of the catheter in the anatomy. Single or dual radiopaque markers at the distal end facilitate fluoroscopic visualization. The outer surface of the catheter is coated to increase lubricity.

The provided text does not describe a study involving a device that uses AI or machine learning. Instead, it describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "Rebar™ Micro Catheter." This submission is focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to an existing predicate device based on material changes (e.g., to the hub material and adhesive) and associated non-clinical bench testing.

Therefore, I cannot provide the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving an AI/ML device meets them, as the provided document pertains to a traditional, non-AI medical device clearance.

The document discusses:

• Device: Rebar™ Micro Catheter (a vascular microcatheter)
• Purpose: Delivery of interventional devices or contrast media into the vasculature.
• Regulatory Pathway: 510(k) premarket notification, aiming for substantial equivalence to a previously cleared Rebar™ Micro Catheter (K093750).
• Changes: Primarily changes to the material of the catheter hub (from Polypropylene to Trogamid) and the adhesive used.
• Proof of Equivalence: Non-clinical bench testing and biocompatibility data, rather than clinical trials or AI/ML performance studies.

The acceptance criteria listed are for physical and functional properties of the catheter (e.g., hub integrity, pressurization, tensile strength) and not related to AI/ML performance metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity. There is no mention of a test set, ground truth acquisition involving experts, MRMC studies, or training sets, as these concepts are not applicable to the type of device and study described.

Ask a specific question about this device