Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K240871
    Date Cleared
    2024-11-18

    (234 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    870.1330
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Applicant Name (Manufacturer) :

    Enlight Medical Technologies (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    Synxess Neurovascular Guidewire is intended to be used in the neuro vasculature to facilitate the placement and exchange of therapeutic devices such as cerebral catheters during intravascular therapy. This guidewire is intended for use only in the neuro vasculature.

    Device Description

    The Synxess Neurovascular Guidewire is available in diameters of 0.014 inch (0.35 mm) and 0.010 inch (0.25 mm) and has 200 cm length. The device is comprised of a core wire, coils, and coatings, and is supplied with a shaping mandrel and a torque device. The guidewire distal tip is straight and shapeable. The device is provided sterile and is for single use.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the Synxess Neurovascular Guidewire, and details the non-clinical testing performed to establish substantial equivalence to predicate devices. It does not describe an AI/ML-driven device or a study involving human readers and AI assistance. Therefore, many of the requested points in the prompt (e.g., AI performance metrics, MRMC study, expert ground truth establishment for AI, training set details) are not applicable to this document.

    However, I can provide information based on the provided text regarding the device's acceptance criteria and the study that proves it meets them, focusing on the non-clinical performance testing conducted for a guidewire.

    Here's the breakdown based on the provided document:

    Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Synxess Neurovascular Guidewire

    The acceptance criteria for this non-AI device are based on passing various performance bench tests and biocompatibility tests in accordance with relevant international standards and FDA guidance. The study proving the device meets these criteria is the battery of non-clinical tests performed.

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    The acceptance criteria for each test are implicitly "Pass" or "Met acceptance criteria" as defined by the referenced standards and guidance documents. The reported device performance for all listed tests was successful.

    TestStandards, Guidance, Test MethodReported Device Performance
    Visual InspectionFDA Guidewire Guidance and ISO 11070Pass
    Dimensional VerificationFDA Guidewire Guidance and ISO 11070Pass
    Simulated UseFDA Guidewire GuidancePass
    Tensile Strength and Tip PullFDA Guidewire Guidance and ISO 11070Pass
    Torque StrengthFDA Guidewire GuidancePass
    TorqueabilityFDA Guidewire GuidancePass
    Coating IntegrityFDA Guidewire GuidancePass
    Particulate EvaluationFDA Guidewire GuidancePass
    LubricityFDA Guidewire GuidancePass
    Corrosion ResistanceFDA Guidewire Guidance and ISO 11070Pass
    Kink ResistanceFDA Guidewire GuidancePass
    Tip FlexibilityFDA Guidewire GuidancePass
    RadiopacityFDA Guidewire Guidance and ISO 11070Pass
    Fracture TestISO 11070Pass
    Flexing TestISO 11070Pass
    Shaping Mandrel Visual and Dimensional InspectionThe shaping mandrel was examined for signs of impurities or defects. The mandrel length and outer diameter were measured.Met acceptance criteria
    Shaping Mandrel Corrosion ResistanceISO 11070Pass
    Shaping Mandrel Tensile StrengthThe tensile strength between the shaping mandrel rod and handle was measured.Met acceptance criteria
    Torque Device Visual Inspection and Simulated UseThe torque device was examined for signs of impurities or defects. Simulated use evaluated the torque device compatibility and performance.Met acceptance criteria
    Biocompatibility Tests
    Cytotoxicity Study Using MTT MethodISO 10993-5Pass
    Sensitization Study Guinea Pig Maximization TestISO 10993-10Pass
    Intracutaneous Reactivity Test In RabbitsISO 10993-23Pass
    Acute Systemic Toxicity Study In MiceISO 10993-11Pass
    Pyrogen Test In RabbitsISO 10993-11 / USPPass
    Hemolysis Assay-Direct Contact And Extract MethodsISO 10993-4 / ASTM F756-17Pass
    Complement Activation SC5b-9 AssayISO 10993-4Pass
    Thromboresistance Evaluation In DogsISO 10993-4Pass
    Sterilization Validation
    EO Sterilization Process ValidationISO 11135:2014Validated
    Sterilant ResidualsISO 10993-7:2008Met acceptance criteria
    Shelf-Life Validation
    Shelf-Life (3 years)Testing of accelerated aged devicesValidated

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

    • Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact sample sizes (e.g., number of guidewires) used for each individual performance bench test or biocompatibility test. It only states that the device "passed all performance bench testing." For biocompatibility, some tests specify animal models (e.g., guinea pig, rabbits, mice, dogs), but the specific number of animals is not provided.
    • Data Provenance: The document generally indicates that the tests were performed in accordance with "internal requirements, referenced guidance and international standards." The country of origin for the data is implied to be from the manufacturer, Enlight Medical Technologies (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., located in China. The data would be considered prospective as it was generated specifically for this 510(k) submission.

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

    • This question is not applicable as this is a physical medical device (guidewire), not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic device requiring expert clinical interpretation for ground truth. The "ground truth" for these tests is defined by the physical and chemical properties measured against established engineering and biological standards.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    • This question is not applicable for the reasons stated above. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in clinical studies where human interpretation of medical images or patient data requires consensus, which is not relevant here.

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

    • No. An MRMC study was not performed because this is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML-driven system that assists human readers in diagnostic tasks. The document explicitly states: "No clinical testing was deemed necessary to support the substantial equivalence of the subject device."

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

    • Not applicable. This is not an algorithm-only device.

    7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

    • The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by engineering standards (e.g., measurements of tensile strength, torqueability, flexibility, dimensions) and biological/chemical standards for biocompatibility (e.g., cytotoxicity assays, pyrogen tests, hemolysis assays). These are objective, quantifiable measures against predefined acceptance criteria from international standards (e.g., ISO 11070, ISO 10993 series) and FDA guidance.

    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

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

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

    • Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/ML model.
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1