Search Results

Delineate the outline of the left ventricular wall automatically and/or manually in angiographic X-ray images - either monoplane or biplane analysis; Absolute measurements of ventricular volumes - calculation of derived parameters; Quantification of the motion of the ventricular wall by applying several established models - Estimation of the dimensions of the myocardiac wall.

The CAAS II LVA-Biplane Option is one of the software modules intended to run on the Cardiovascular Angiography Analysis System mark II, CAAS II. It functions in the same manner as other left ventricular analysis software packages. In the End Diastolic (ED) and End Systolic (ES) images (of a monoplane or biplane run), available from various image sources, the outline of the left ventricular contour is either drawn manually or detected automatically. From these contours the ventricular volumes, the ejection fraction and other related parameters are determined using either the Area Length or the Simpson's rule model. Next to the quantification of the ventricular volumes, also the motion of the ventricular wall between ED and ES is quantified from these ventricular contours using four clinically and scientifically established models: the Centerline, Regional, Radial and Slager wall motion models. Finally myocardium dimensions can be estimated from the ED ventricular contour and a manually drawn outline of the epicardium. All results of the analysis are available on screen as well as hardcopy.

The provided 510(k) summary for the CAAS II LVA-Biplane Option does not contain detailed information about acceptance criteria or a specific study proving the device meets those criteria. The document primarily focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to predicate devices and describing the device's functionality.

It asserts that "the automatic contour detection of the CAAS II LVA-Biplane Option is equivalent to the predicate devices. For the predicate devices manufactured by Philips the automatic contour detection has been shown to generate identical results in tests were the contours were compared on a pixel-by-pixel bases." However, it does not provide details of this comparison for the CAAS II LVA-Biplane Option itself.

Therefore, many of the requested details cannot be extracted from the provided text.

Here is a summary of what can and cannot be extracted:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Not available. The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria for the CAAS II LVA-Biplane Option's performance or report its performance against such criteria.

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

Not available. The document states that the automatic contour detection for Philips predicate devices "has been shown to generate identical results in tests were the contours were compared on a pixel-by-pixel bases." However, it does not provide details about these tests (sample size, data provenance) for the predicate devices, nor does it conduct such a test for the CAAS II LVA-Biplane Option directly, only stating its automatic contour detection is "equivalent."

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

Not available. No information is provided regarding the establishment of ground truth by experts for any test sets related to the CAAS II LVA-Biplane Option.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not available. No test set or ground truth establishment details are provided, so no adjudication method is mentioned.

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

No. The document does not describe any MRMC comparative effectiveness study for the CAAS II LVA-Biplane Option.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study was Done

Partially. The document implies that the "automatic contour detection" feature was evaluated for the predicate devices, and the CAAS II LVA-Biplane Option is asserted to be equivalent due to this predicate data. However, a dedicated standalone study for the CAAS II LVA-Biplane Option is not detailed. The statement "For the predicate devices manufactured by Philips the automatic contour detection has been shown to generate identical results in tests were the contours were compared on a pixel-by-pixel bases" suggests some form of standalone evaluation of the algorithm's output against a reference.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

Based on the statement for the predicate devices: "contours were compared on a pixel-by-pixel bases," the ground truth for contour detection would likely have been expert consensus or highly accurate manual tracings for the predicate evaluations. However, this is not explicitly stated for the CAAS II LVA-Biplane Option.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

Not available. There is no mention of a training set or its size.

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

Not available. As no training set is mentioned, information on how its ground truth was established is also absent.

In summary, the 510(k) submission for the CAAS II LVA-Biplane Option relies heavily on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, particularly those by Philips, by asserting similar technological characteristics and functionality. It does not present a dedicated study with defined acceptance criteria and performance metrics for the CAAS II LVA-Biplane Option itself to demonstrate compliance with specific performance thresholds. The reference to "pixel-by-pixel" comparison for predicate device contour detection suggests a method of evaluating accuracy, but the specifics are lacking.

Ask a specific question about this device