Search Results

The LimFlow ARC is intended to facilitate placement and positioning of guide wires and catheters within the peripheral vasculature. The LimFlow ARC is not intended for use in the coronary or cerebral vasculature.

The LimFlow ARC is a single-use device designed to facilitate placement and positioning of guide wires within the peripheral vasculature. The device consists of three primary elements: 1) Cannula, 2) Catheter shaft, and 3) Deployment handle with deployment control slide. The LimFlow ARC is used in a healthcare facility, such as a cardiac catheter lab or hospital. It is in contact with patient tissue for less than 24 hours and is made of materials that are biocompatible. The LimFlow ARC is supplied sterile.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the LimFlow ARC indicates that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device (LimFlow ARC, K221541) and that no new clinical data was required for this submission. The modifications made to the device are described as "incremental, non-significant modifications," and the clearance relies heavily on non-clinical performance testing and substantial equivalence to the previously cleared predicate.

Therefore, there is no information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria in the context of new clinical performance for this specific 510(k) submission (K251376). The document explicitly states: "Animal testing was not required for the determination of substantial equivalence." This implies that human clinical studies, multi-reader multi-case studies, or standalone algorithm performance studies were also not required or conducted for this re-submission.

The "studies" that were performed were primarily non-clinical and pre-clinical tests to demonstrate that the modified device still performs as safely and effectively as the predicate device.

Given this, I cannot provide the detailed information requested in the prompt based on the provided text, as the type of studies and criteria outlined in your request (e.g., sample size for test sets, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance) are typically associated with new and clinical performance evaluations of AI or diagnostic devices, which is not the case for this 510(k) clearance.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and "performance" in the context of the non-clinical testing conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence:

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

The document does not provide a specific table with numerical acceptance criteria and corresponding reported device performance for each test performed. Instead, it lists the types of non-clinical tests performed, implying that the device "met" the unstated acceptance criteria for each, thereby demonstrating substantial equivalence. The "performance" is implicitly stated as having satisfied the requirements for each test.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified for any of the non-clinical tests. Standard sample sizes for device testing are typically based on statistical methods to ensure representativeness and confidence, but the exact numbers are not in this public document.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data for this submission. The "data" refers to the results of in-vitro and bench testing.

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

• Not applicable as this was not a clinical study requiring expert ground truth for patient data evaluation.

4. Adjudication method 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

• No, a MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The device (LimFlow ARC) is a physical medical device (catheter) not an AI diagnostic tool that assists human readers.

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

• Not applicable. The LimFlow ARC is a physical catheter, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

• For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the specifications of the device and the standards against which it is tested (e.g., ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ASTM standards for packaging, internal engineering specifications for mechanical properties).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. No training set was involved as this is a physical device, not a machine learning model.

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

• Not applicable.

Summary based on provided text:

The LimFlow ARC K251376 clearance is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to its predicate (K221541) through incremental, non-significant modifications and comprehensive non-clinical (bench) and pre-clinical (biocompatibility) testing. No new clinical or animal testing was required for this particular submission. The "acceptance criteria" and "performance" refer to the device successfully meeting various engineering specifications, biocompatibility standards, sterilization validation, and packaging integrity tests.

Ask a specific question about this device

The LimFlow V-Ceiver is intended for use in the cardiovascular system to manipulate and retrieve guidewires specified in the IFU.

The LimFlow V-Ceiver is a percutaneous snaring device with a luer on the proximal end and a snaring basket at the distal end. The basket is composed of nitinol for shape memory and visibility with radiopaque markers on either end of the basket for added visibility. The coaxial sheathing system is used to re-constrain the basket once a guide wire is captured.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain any information about acceptance criteria for a device's performance based on image analysis, nor does it describe a study that proves a device meets such criteria.

The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the LimFlow V-Ceiver, which is an embolectomy catheter, a physical medical device. The clearance is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (LimFlow V-Ceiver K222083) through non-clinical performance tests, biocompatibility, sterilization, and packaging validation.

The "Indications for Use" explicitly state: "The LimFlow V-Ceiver is intended for use in the cardiovascular system to manipulate and retrieve guidewires specified in the IFU." This indicates it's a device for physical manipulation within the body, not an imaging or AI-based diagnostic tool.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance related to image analysis.
2. Sample size, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods for a test set, MRMC studies, standalone performance, or ground truth types related to an AI/imaging device.
3. Information on training sets or their ground truth establishment for an AI/imaging device.

The provided text pertains to the regulatory clearance of a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The LimFlow V-Ceiver™ is intended for use in the cardiovascular system to manipulate and retrieve guidewires specified in the IFU.

The LimFlow V-Ceiver consists of an intravascular catheter which incorporates a nitinol basket (the "Snare") at its distal tip. The nitinol basket has an outer diameter of 6 mm. The catheter has a built-in coaxial sheathing system and incorporates radiopaque markers at the distal tip on either end of the basket for added visibility. The catheter if compatible with 4 Fr introducer sheaths and has a working length of 100 cm.

The provided text describes the LimFlow V-Ceiver, an embolectomy catheter, and its non-clinical performance tests to establish substantial equivalence with a predicate device. It does not contain information about a study involving human readers, AI assistance, or related ground truth evaluations that would typically be associated with an AI/ML device.

However, I can extract the information related to the device's acceptance criteria and the studies performed to meet these criteria, as described in the context of a medical device submission.

Here's a summary of the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document outlines several performance tests conducted for the LimFlow V-Ceiver, each with a statement of meeting predetermined acceptance criteria. Specific quantitative acceptance criteria are not provided in detail, but the outcomes are stated as successful.

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

• Test Set (Non-clinical Performance Tests): The document does not specify exact sample sizes for each mechanical or biocompatibility test. It mentions that "a series of testing was conducted" and that "the below were shown to meet the acceptance criteria." The tests are typically conducted on multiple units or samples to ensure reproducibility and statistical significance, but specific numbers are not provided.
• Test Set (Pre-clinical Study): "An acute swine model" was used. The specific number of animals is not provided.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but these are laboratory and animal model studies, not human patient data from a specific country.

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

This information is not applicable to the provided context. The studies described are non-clinical performance and pre-clinical animal studies, which do not involve expert human readers establishing ground truth in the way described for AI/ML performance evaluation studies.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable for the non-clinical and pre-clinical studies described.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, and the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

Not applicable. This document describes the testing of a physical medical device (embolectomy catheter), not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive tool for human readers.

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

Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML algorithm.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by established engineering and biological standards (e.g., ISO 10555-1, ISO 10993 series) and predetermined acceptance criteria derived from these standards and clinical relevance.

For the pre-clinical swine model, the "ground truth" for performance would be the observable success of guidewire snaring and the observed thrombogenicity outcomes within the animal model, judged against pre-defined acceptable ranges.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. There is no mention of a training set as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device