Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K955534
    Date Cleared
    1996-08-01

    (241 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    870.1210
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    N/A
    Predicate For
    N/A
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The Segue ™ Infusion Catheter is indicated for the delivery of therapeutic agents into the peripheral vasculature. It is not indicated for use in coronary or cerebral vasculature. It is not intended for use with thrombolytics. It is not intended for use with power injection pumps.

    Device Description

    The Segue ™ Infusion Catheter is a single lumen, over-the-wire device designed to locally deliver fluids into the peripheral (non-coronary, non-cerebral) vasculature

    AI/ML Overview

    Here's an analysis of the provided information regarding the Segue™ Infusion Catheter, specifically addressing the acceptance criteria and study details based on the given text.

    It's important to note that the provided 510(k) summary (K955534) for the Segue™ Infusion Catheter focuses on pre-market notification for a Class II medical device. For such devices, particularly those that are not complex AI/ML-driven diagnostic tools, the "acceptance criteria" and "study" are typically geared towards demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device and ensuring the device meets engineering specifications for safety and basic functionality, rather than clinical performance metrics often seen in AI/ML performance studies.

    Therefore, many of the questions directly related to AI/ML device performance metrics (like sensitivity, specificity, AUC, sample size for test sets, ground truth establishment by experts, MRMC studies, or training set details) are not applicable or not provided in this type of 510(k) submission.

    Analysis of Acceptance Criteria and Study for Segue™ Infusion Catheter

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

    Acceptance Criteria CategorySpecific Criteria (Implied)Reported Device Performance
    Physical Performance Testing (Engineering Specifications)Dimensional Inspection: Meets specificationsAll testing results were within product engineering and marketing specifications.
    Deployment Verification: Meets specificationsAll testing results were within product engineering and marketing specifications.
    Recoil Verification: Meets specificationsAll testing results were within product engineering and marketing specifications.
    Marker Band Attachment: Meets specificationsAll testing results were within product engineering and marketing specifications.
    Infusion Flow Rate: Meets specificationsAll testing results were within product engineering and marketing specifications.
    Internal Pressurization: Meets specificationsAll testing results were within product engineering and marketing specifications.
    Bond Strength: Meets specificationsAll testing results were within product engineering and marketing specifications.
    Flexural Fatigue Strength: Meets specificationsAll testing results were within product engineering and marketing specifications.
    Radial Force: Meets specificationsAll testing results were within product engineering and marketing specifications.
    Trackability: Meets specificationsAll testing results were within product engineering and marketing specifications.
    BiocompatibilityAll materials are biocompatible for the intended applicationAll materials passed the biocompatibility testing and are suitable for this application.
    Animal Study Findings (Safety/Functionality)Device placement in a vessel is achievable, no adverse results (e.g., related to thrombus accumulation)There were no adverse results reported (regarding placement and thrombus accumulation).
    Substantial EquivalenceMaterials are same or substantially equivalent to predicate deviceConstructed of the same or substantially equivalent materials.
    Sizes and configurations are comparable to predicate deviceSizes and configurations available are comparable.
    Packaging methods and materials are comparable to predicate devicePackaging methods and materials are comparable.
    Clinical indications for use are substantially equivalent to predicate deviceClinical indications for use are substantially equivalent.
    No new safety or effectiveness issues raised compared to predicate deviceBecause of the similarities...this product does not raise any new safety or effectiveness issues.

    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 specified for the physical testing. For the animal studies, the "sample size" (number of animals) is not provided.
    • Data Provenance: The physical testing is laboratory-based, likely conducted internally by the manufacturer. The animal studies were conducted to assess placement and thrombus accumulation; details on the type of animals, country of origin, or if they were retrospective or prospective are not provided. Given the nature of medical device pre-market testing, these would typically be prospective studies.

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

    • Not Applicable. This device is an infusion catheter, an interventional device, not an AI/ML diagnostic tool. Its performance is assessed through engineering tests and animal studies, not through expert-labeled diagnostic data.

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

    • Not Applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in clinical studies or for establishing ground truth in diagnostic imaging, which is not relevant here. The "results were within product engineering and marketing specifications" implies internal verification processes, rather than external expert 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. This is not an AI-assisted diagnostic device, so an MRMC study is not relevant.

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

    • No. This is not an AI/ML algorithm. Its "standalone" performance is measured by its physical properties and functionality.

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

    • The "ground truth" for this device's acceptance is based on:
      • Engineering Specifications: Predefined numerical ranges and pass/fail criteria for physical tests (e.g., bond strength, flow rate).
      • Biocompatibility Standards: Compliance with established ISO or other regulatory standards for material biocompatibility.
      • Visual/Observational Assessment in Animal Studies: Observing successful placement and absence of adverse events like thrombus accumulation.

    8. The sample size for the training set:

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

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

    • Not Applicable. This is not an AI/ML device that requires a "training set."
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1