Search Results

Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Boston Scientific Dynamic XT Unidirectional Steerable Diagnostic Catheters are indicated for use to diagnose cardiac arrhythmia.

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Boston Scientific Dynamic XT Unidirectional Steerable Diagnostic Catheters are intended for temporary intracardiac sensing, recording, stimulation, and temporary pacing during the evaluation or cardiac arrhythmias. The steerable diagnostic electrode catheters are radiopaque, flexible, insulated catheters with a polymer shaft, each having a mechanical operating mechanism. In each catheter the polymer shaft connects to the catheter handle whereby the curve or loop is actuated by a single pull cable. The Dynamic XT Catheters have a plunger mechanism, which, when moved forward or back, results in curvature of the distal tip.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter (K250772) pertains to a reprocessed medical device, specifically the Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Boston Scientific Dynamic XT Unidirectional Steerable Diagnostic Catheter. This document largely focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through comparison of technological characteristics and functional performance testing.

Crucially, the provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the context of an AI/ML powered device, as assumed by the structured request. The clearance is for a physical medical device (a reprocessed catheter), not a software or AI/ML algorithm. Therefore, many of the requested categories (e.g., sample size for test/training sets, expert ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance) are not applicable to the information contained within this document.

The "Non-clinical Testing Summary" section describes the types of tests performed to demonstrate safety and effectiveness for a reprocessed physical device. These tests assess the physical and electrical properties of the catheter after reprocessing.

I will attempt to answer the applicable sections based on the information provided, and explicitly state when information is not available or not applicable due to the nature of the device.

Description of Acceptance Criteria and Study to Prove the Device Meets Acceptance Criteria for K250772

As noted above, this 510(k) clearance is for a reprocessed physical medical device (a catheter), not an AI/ML-powered device. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "study" described herein are related to the physical, functional, and safety performance of the reprocessed catheter compared to the original, new device, rather than a statistical evaluation of an AI algorithm's diagnostic performance.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The FDA 510(k) summary (pages 6-8) describes the non-clinical testing performed to establish substantial equivalence. While explicit numerical acceptance criteria values are not provided in this public summary, the types of tests indicate the areas where the reprocessed device must perform equivalently to the predicate. The "reported device performance" is implied by the statement "found to be substantially equivalent to the predicate device based on the following tests."

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact number of reprocessed catheters (the "test set") used for each functional and safety test. For medical devices, particularly reprocessed ones, sample sizes are typically determined by statistical rationale to demonstrate equivalence or meet performance specifications, but these details are not in the summary.
• Data Provenance: This relates to the testing of the reprocessed device itself. The data would be prospective, as it involves testing reprocessed devices manufactured by Medline ReNewal. The country of origin for the data would be where Medline ReNewal conducts its testing, likely the USA given the FDA clearance.

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

• N/A. This concept applies to diagnostic or AI/ML devices where a "ground truth" is established by human experts (e.g., radiologists interpreting images). For a reprocessed physical device, "ground truth" is established by objective engineering and safety standards (e.g., measuring dimensions against specifications, testing electrical resistance against a standard). The "experts" would be qualified engineers and technicians performing the tests.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• N/A. Adjudication (e.g., 2+1, 3+1 consensus) is used in studies with human readers interpreting data, often to resolve discrepancies in diagnoses or interpretations. This is not applicable to the direct physical and functional testing of a medical device like a catheter.

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

• N/A. This type of study is relevant for AI/ML-assisted diagnostic tools, not for a reprocessed physical device like this catheter. The clearance is based on the catheter's physical and functional equivalence to new catheters, not on improving human diagnostic accuracy.

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

• N/A. This refers to the performance of an AI/ML algorithm on its own. It is not applicable to a physical medical device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the physical and functional aspects of the reprocessed catheter, the "ground truth" is established by:
  • Engineering Specifications: The design and performance specifications of the original (predicate) new device. The reprocessed device must meet these same specifications.
  • Regulatory Standards: Relevant FDA and international standards for medical device safety and performance (e.g., electrical safety, biocompatibility, sterilization).
  • Objective Measurements: Direct measurements (e.g., dimensions, electrical properties, mechanical strength) and analytical tests (e.g., for residual contaminants).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• N/A. "Training set" refers to data used to train an AI/ML algorithm. This is not applicable to a physical reprocessed medical device. The "training" for this device is the validation of the reprocessing procedure itself.

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

• N/A. Since there is no "training set" in the AI/ML sense, this question is not applicable. For a reprocessed device, the "ground truth" is inherent in the established manufacturing and safety standards that the reprocessing procedure must meet. The reprocessor (Medline ReNewal) developed and validated a controlled process (cleaning, inspection, testing, packaging, sterilization) to ensure that the reprocessed catheter performs equivalently to a new device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Biosense Webster SOUNDSTAR eco Diagnostic Ultrasound Catheters 8F, 8FG, 10F 10FG are indicated for intra-cardiac and intra-luminal visualization of cardiac and great vessel anatomy and physiology as well as visualization of other devices in the heart. When used with compatible CARTO 3 EP Navigation Systems, the SOUNDSTAR eco Catheter provides location information.

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Biosense Webster SOUNDSTAR eco Diagnostic Ultrasound Catheters 8F, 8FG, 10F, 10FG are licensed for single use only. Models differ in shaft diameter (8F or 10F) and ultrasound system compatibility (Siemens [8F and 10F] or GE [8FG and 10FG]). The catheter consists of a CARTO connector, SwiftLink (ultrasound) connector, handle and shaft. In the distal tip of each catheter's shaft are a 64-element ultrasound transducer providing 2D imaging and a 3D location sensor providing location information to the compatible CARTO 3 Electrophysiology (EP) Navigation System. The deflection and tension knobs on the handle are used to articulate the distal tip and control the image plane orientation with four-directional (anterior-posterior, left-right) deflection.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to the Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Biosense Webster SOUNDSTAR eco Diagnostic Ultrasound Catheters. This document outlines the regulatory review and approval process for a reprocessed medical device, asserting its substantial equivalence to original predicate devices.

However, the provided text does not contain any information regarding specific acceptance criteria for AI/ML performance, nor does it describe a study involving AI assistance or standalone AI performance evaluation. The "Non-clinical Testing Summary" focuses on the physical, electrical, and reprocessing aspects of the reprocessed catheter itself (e.g., functional performance, electrical safety, cleaning validation, biocompatibility, sterilization validation, packaging and shelf life). It explicitly states: "The current submission does not include consoles or any other system components as part of this respective submissions." The device subject to clearance is an ultrasound catheter, not an AI-powered diagnostic system.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria for AI/ML device performance based on the provided document. The document pertains to a physical medical device (an ultrasound catheter) and its reprocessing, not an AI/ML-driven diagnostic or assistive technology.

If you have a document describing an AI/ML device and its performance study, I would be happy to analyze it according to your requested criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Siemens ACUSON AcuNav Ultrasound Catheter 10F is intended for intra-cardiac and intra-luminal visualization of cardiac and great vessel anatomy and physiology as well as visualization of other devices in the heart of adult patients. The catheter is intended for imaging guidance only not treatment delivery, during cardiac interventional percutaneous procedures.

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Siemens AcuNav Diagnostic Ultrasound Catheters 10F are licensed for single use only. The catheter is optimized for intracardiac scanning. With the catheter, the physician can maneuver the imaging plane located inside the catheter tip to see the region of interest. The physician can steer the catheter to optimize tissue visualization. The catheters are to be used only on systems with which they have been tested and found compatible.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a reprocessed medical device, specifically an ultrasound catheter, not a new device involving AI or complex software. As such, the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and studies that prove a device meets acceptance criteria specifically for AI/Software performance is not present in this document.

The 510(k) submission for the Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Siemens ACUSON AcuNav Ultrasound Catheter 10F focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (the original, single-use Siemens AcuNav Diagnostic Ultrasound Catheter). This is achieved through non-clinical testing to show that the reprocessed device performs as safely and effectively as the original.

Therefore, many of the specific points you've asked for, such as sample size for a test set for AI performance, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone AI performance, and ground truth for training data, are not applicable to this type of device and submission.

However, I can extract information related to the non-clinical testing performed to establish substantial equivalence for this reprocessed device, which serves as its "proof" of meeting performance criteria.

Here's an interpretation based on the provided document:

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

The document doesn't present a formal table of quantitative acceptance criteria with numerical performance data. Instead, it lists the types of non-clinical tests performed to demonstrate that the reprocessed device's functional characteristics are substantially equivalent to the predicate device. The implied acceptance criterion for each test is that the reprocessed device performs comparably to the original to ensure safety and effectiveness.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document does not specify the exact number of units/samples used for each type of non-clinical test. This level of detail is typically found in the full testing reports submitted to the FDA, not in the public 510(k) summary.
• Data Provenance: The tests were conducted by Medline ReNewal. While not explicitly stated, such tests are generally conducted at their facilities or certified labs. The country of origin of the data would be the USA (Oregon, specifically, as per the address). The data is prospective in the sense that Medline ReNewal specifically conducted these tests to support this 510(k) submission for their reprocessed device.

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

• Not applicable. This relates to AI/software performance evaluation where human experts establish ground truth for image interpretation or diagnosis. For a reprocessed physical device, "ground truth" is established by adherence to engineering specifications, performance standards, and established test methodologies (e.g., AAMI standards for sterilization, ISO standards for biocompatibility). The "experts" involved would be engineers, microbiologists, and other technical personnel who design and execute these tests, and interpret the results against pre-defined success criteria.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable. This refers to consensus-building among medical experts for labeling data, which is not relevant for the physical performance testing of a reprocessed medical device. Test results are compared against objective criteria and engineering specifications.

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 type of study is relevant for AI-powered diagnostic devices. This submission is for a reprocessed ultrasound catheter.

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

• Not applicable. This refers to the performance of a software algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For this reprocessed device, "ground truth" is based on engineering specifications, established performance standards (e.g., mechanical strength, electrical safety, acoustic performance), and validated manufacturing processes (e.g., cleaning efficacy, sterilization efficacy). The original predicate device's performance also serves as a benchmark for comparison.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/machine learning 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

Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Abbott Inquiry Steerable Diagnostic Catheters can be used for electrogram recording and cardiac stimulation during diagnostic electrophysiologic studies. The catheters are commonly placed in the high right atrium, right ventricular apex, and the HIS bundle.

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Inquiry Steerable Diagnostic Electrophysiology Catheters are flexible, insulated catheters constructed of thermoplastic elastomer material and noble metal electrodes. The tip of the steerable catheters may be manipulated with the control mechanism located in the handle of the proximal end of the catheter.

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA regarding a reprocessed medical device: the Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Abbott Inquiry Steerable Diagnostic Catheter. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving the safety and effectiveness of a novel device through extensive clinical studies with specific acceptance criteria as you would see for an AI/ML powered device.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes for training/test sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, or ground truth establishment in the context of an AI/ML device.

Instead, the document details physical and functional performance testing to ensure the reprocessed device is equivalent to the original predicate devices. This typically involves:

• Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance: This document does not present a formal table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance in the way one would for an AI/ML algorithm. Instead, it states that "The functional characteristics of the subject device have been evaluated and found to be substantially equivalent to the predicate device based on the following tests." The tests listed are:

  • Visual inspection
  • Dimensional measurement
  • Electrical safety
  • Mechanical characteristics (continuity, isolation, resistance)
  • Corrosion resistance
  • Cleaning validation
  • Biocompatibility
  • Packaging and shelf life validation
  • Sterilization validation
  • Product stability
    The acceptance criterion for these tests is that the reprocessed device performs comparably to the new, original predicate devices.

• Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: The document does not specify exact sample sizes for each of the non-clinical tests listed. It indicates the tests were performed on the reprocessed devices. The "data provenance" is implied to be from Medline ReNewal's internal testing of their reprocessed catheters. This is not medical imaging data from patients.

• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. For reprocessed medical devices, "ground truth" relates to engineering specifications and performance standards established by the original manufacturer and industry standards, rather than expert human interpretation of medical data.

• Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically associated with human interpretation of complex data (like medical images) to establish ground truth, which is not the type of data or evaluation performed for this device.

• 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 a physical medical device, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. MRMC studies are for AI/ML devices to assess human reader performance with and without AI assistance.

• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

• The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Ground truth for this device would be based on engineering specifications, material properties, functional performance benchmarks (e.g., electrical resistance within a specified range, mechanical integrity under stress, sterility), and established safety standards. It does not involve medical, pathological, or outcomes data in the way an AI/ML diagnostic would.

• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no "training set."

• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. As there is no training set.

In summary, the provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter for a reprocessed physical medical device, not an AI/ML enabled device. Therefore, the questions related to AI/ML model evaluation (training/test sets, ground truth methodology, expert adjudication, MRMC studies) are not relevant to this submission. The "study" proving the device meets acceptance criteria refers to a series of non-clinical, bench-top functional and material property tests to ensure the reprocessed device performs equivalently to its new predicate.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Biosense Webster CS Catheter is indicated for electrophysiological mapping of cardiac structures, i.e., stimulation and recording only. The catheter is designed for use in the coronary sinus.

The reprocessed catheters are diagnostic bi-directional 7F deflectable mapping electrophysiology EP catheters. The devices have the ability to map electrical activity within the Coronary Sinus (CS) through electrodes along the catheters' pre-shaped tip. The catheters have a braided bi-directional tip section that provides the user with two 180° opposed single plane curves (available curves are DF and FJ). The tip is deflected with a Rocker Lever, and the high torque shaft permits the tip's plane to rotate to ease accurate positioning of the catheter tip at the desired site. The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Biosense Webster Webster CS Catheter with EZ Steer Technology and Auto ID are equipped with an Electronically Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory (EEPROM) that is used to store unique catheter identification information.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification from the FDA for a reprocessed medical device: "Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Biosense Webster CS Catheter with EZ Steer Technology and Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Biosense Webster Webster CS Catheter with EZ Steer Technology and Auto ID".

This document is not about an AI/ML medical device. It's about a reprocessed catheter and demonstrates substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on non-clinical performance data. Therefore, the specific questions related to AI/ML device acceptance criteria, study methodologies (like MRMC, standalone performance, training sets, expert consensus for ground truth), and effect sizes of AI assistance are not applicable to this document.

The document discusses "non-clinical testing" and "functional performance studies" for the reprocessed catheters to demonstrate their equivalence to new, original equipment manufacturer (OEM) catheters.

Here's an attempt to extract the relevant information from the provided text, while noting the limitations regarding the AI/ML specific questions:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance (based on non-clinical testing for a reprocessed device):

The document does not provide a table of precise quantitative acceptance criteria with corresponding performance metrics for the reprocessed catheter in the way one would expect for an AI/ML device's diagnostic performance. Instead, it states that the functional characteristics of the subject device (reprocessed catheter) have been evaluated and found to be substantially equivalent to the predicate device. This substantial equivalence is based on various non-clinical tests.

The types of non-clinical tests performed and implicitly, the areas where acceptance criteria would have been applied (though not explicitly listed with values), include:

The evidence for "proof" that the device meets "acceptance criteria" is the FDA's determination of substantial equivalence (SE) to legally marketed predicate devices. This SE determination is based on the provided non-clinical testing data which, by inference, met the internal acceptance criteria set by Medline ReNewal and deemed sufficient by the FDA for establishing SE.

Regarding the AI/ML specific questions:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: As explained above, for this reprocessed medical device, specific quantitative metrics are not provided in the summary. The acceptance is based on demonstrating substantial equivalence through various functional, mechanical, cleaning, biocompatibility, and sterilization tests.

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: The document mentions "non-clinical testing data" and "functional performance studies" but does not specify the sample sizes (e.g., number of catheters tested) or the provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) of this data. It is inherently laboratory/bench testing data, not clinical data from patients.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: This is not applicable. For a reprocessed physical device, "ground truth" would be established through laboratory methods and validated testing protocols against known engineering and biological standards, not through human expert consensus in the medical imaging sense.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable, as no expert adjudication of diagnostic outputs occurred.

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 a reprocessed physical catheter, not an AI/ML diagnostic algorithm.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI algorithm. Its "standalone" performance would refer to its physical properties and functionality outside of human use, as evaluated through the non-clinical tests.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable in the context of diagnostic "ground truth" for AI. For this device, "ground truth" refers to the established performance and safety specifications of the original predicate device, against which the reprocessed device's performance is compared through physical and chemical testing.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is a reprocessed physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm that undergoes "training."

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. No training set or ground truth in the AI/ML context exists for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed St. Jude Medical Response Electrophysiology Catheters and Supreme Electrophysiology Catheters can be used in the evaluation of a variety of cardiac arrhythmia from endocardial and intravascular sites.

Medline ReNewal Reprocessed St. Jude Medical Supreme and Response Electrophysiology Catheters are commonly placed at the high right atrium, right ventricular apex and His bundle, and in the coronary sinus, and are used for electrogram recording and cardiac stimulation during diagnostic electrophysiology studies. The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed St. Jude Medical Supreme and Response Electrophysiology Catheters are fixed electrode catheters constructed of a polyurethane insulation/shaft and incorporate platinum electrodes. Each device is marked and tracked and will be taken out of service once the maximum number of cycles has been reached.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for reprocessed electrophysiology catheters, specifically the Medline ReNewal Reprocessed St. Jude Medical Response Electrophysiology Catheter and Supreme Electrophysiology Catheter.

However, the document does not contain the detailed information necessary to complete the requested table and answer questions 2 through 9 regarding acceptance criteria, study data, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert involvement for a medical device that uses an algorithm or AI.

The document is a regulatory submission for reprocessed physical medical devices (catheters), not a study of an algorithmic or AI-based diagnostic/detection device. The "Non-clinical Testing Summary" section discusses functional performance, mechanical characteristics, corrosion resistance, cleaning, biocompatibility, packaging, shelf-life, and sterilization validation, which are typical for reprocessed physical medical devices.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information as the context of the document does not align with the type of study and acceptance criteria you are asking about (i.e., for an AI/algorithm-based device).

To summarize, the relevant information you requested is not present in the provided text because the document is about reprocessed physical medical devices, not an AI or algorithm-driven device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Siemens ACUSON AcuNav Diagnostic Ultrasound Catheter is inteacardiac and intra-luminal visualization of cardiac and great vessel anatomy and physiology as well as visualization of other devices in the heart of adult patients. The catheter is intended for imaging guidance only, not treatment delivery, during cardiac interventional percutaneous procedures.

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed AcuNav Diagnostic Ultrasound Catheters 8F are licensed for single use only. The catheter is optimized for intracardiac scanning. With the catheter, the physician can maneuver the imaging plane located inside the catheter tip to see the region of interest. The physician can steer the catheter to optimize tissue visualization. The catheters are to be used only on systems with which they have been tested and found compatible.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a reprocessed medical device, specifically an ultrasound catheter, and does not describe an AI/ML powered device. Therefore, information regarding acceptance criteria and studies proving the device meets those criteria for an AI/ML powered device cannot be extracted from this document.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of a reprocessed device to a legally marketed predicate device, primarily through non-clinical testing of functional performance, material characteristics, cleaning validation, biocompatibility, and sterilization validation. It does not contain details about a study evaluating an AI/ML algorithm's performance.

To answer your request, if this were an AI/ML powered device, the following information would typically be present in a separate study report or detailed within the 510(k) submission, and would not be found in a standard summary like the one provided:

• Acceptance Criteria Table and Reported Performance: This would specify metrics like sensitivity, specificity, AUC, F1-score, accuracy, etc., and the target thresholds, along with the actual performance achieved by the AI model.
• Sample Size and Data Provenance: Details on the number of cases/samples in the test set, and whether the data was retrospective or prospective, and its geographical origin.
• Ground Truth Experts: The number and qualifications of experts who established the ground truth labels for the test set.
• Adjudication Method: How discrepancies among experts were resolved (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, majority vote).
• MRMC Comparative Effectiveness Study: If human readers were involved, details on a multi-reader, multi-case study to assess AI's impact on human performance, including effect sizes.
• Standalone Performance: If the AI algorithm's performance was evaluated independently without human intervention.
• Type of Ground Truth: The method used to establish the true diagnosis (e.g., expert consensus, biopsy, surgical findings, long-term outcomes).
• Training Set Sample Size: The number of data points used to train the AI model.
• Training Set Ground Truth: How the ground truth for the training data was established (often a multi-stage process, possibly involving automated methods, expert review, or existing clinical records).

In summary, the provided document relates to a reprocessed physical medical device and not an AI/ML enabled device. Therefore, it does not contain the information required to answer your specific questions about an AI/ML device's acceptance criteria and validation study.

Ask a specific question about this device

The cable is designed for use only with the Medronic Achieve family of mapping catheters. It is intended to provide the connection of the catheter to a standard ECG interface box.

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Medtronic Achieve Catheter Connecting Cable is licensed for single use only. It connects the catheter and console to provide a path of electrical transmission from the proximal end of an Achieve mapping catheter to standard shielded ECG pins that connect to standard EP pacing and recording equipment. The cable is designed to only be used with the Medtronic Achieve family of mapping catheters

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a reprocessed medical device, the "Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Medtronic Achieve Catheter Connecting Cable (2ACHC)". It is fundamentally a comparison to a predicate device, arguing for substantial equivalence through non-clinical testing.

However, the information provided does not contain details about acceptance criteria or a study proving device performance against such criteria in the context of an AI/algorithm-driven medical device.

The document is a regulatory approval letter and a 510(k) summary for a reprocessed physical medical device (a cable), not an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD). Therefore, it does not include:

• Acceptance criteria for an AI/algorithm's performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC).
• Details about a test set (sample size, provenance).
• Information on expert ground truth establishment (number of experts, qualifications, adjudication methods).
• Any multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study.
• Stand-alone algorithm performance.
• Ground truth type for AI/algorithm evaluation.
• Training set details for an AI model.

The "Non-clinical Testing Summary" section describes the tests performed for this reprocessed physical device:

• Functional performance: simulated use and artificial soiling; visual inspection; continuity, isolation and resistance device functionality; Electrical Safety current leakage and hipot
• Cleaning Validation
• Sterilization Validation bioburden testing
• Packaging and shelf life validation
• Product stability

These are standard engineering and safety tests for a physical medical device, not performance evaluations for an AI/software.

Therefore, based on the provided text, it is not possible to answer the detailed questions about acceptance criteria and study design for an AI/algorithm-driven medical device. The document simply isn't about that kind of device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed LigaSure Sealer/Divider is a bipolar electrosurgical instrument intended for use in open surqical procedures where ligation of vessels, tissue bundles, and lymphatics is desired. The LigaSure Sealer/Divider can be used on vessels (arteries and veins) up to and including 7 mm. It is indicated for use in general surgery and in such surgical specialties as urologic, thoracic, plastic, and reconstructive. Procedures may include, but are not limited to, bowel resections, gall bladder procedures, Nissen fundoplication, and adhesiolysis. The instrument is also indicated for open ENT procedures in adults (thyroidectomy, radical neck dissection, parotidectorny, and tonsillectomy) for ligation and division of vessels. Ivmphatics and tissue bundles 2-3 mm away from unintended thermally-sensitive structures such as nerves and parathyroid glands.

The LigaSure system has not been shown to be effective for tubal sterilization or tubal coagulation for sterilization procedures. Do not use the LigaSure system for these procedures.

The Medline ReNewal Remanufactured LigaSure Exact Dissector, Nano-coated (LF2019) device is a sterile, single-use, handle-held bipolar vessel sealing device designed for use with compatible Covidien electrosurgical generators that include vessel sealing capabilities to ligate (seal) and divide (cut) vessels, tissue bundles, and lymphatics clamped between the jaws, grasp tissue, and perform blunt dissection during general surgical procedures (as indicated) using radio frequency (RF) energy. A hemostat style body allows the user to open or close the instrument jaws during vessel sealing and cutting, with a single activation button incorporated into the body of the device.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the Medline ReNewal Reprocessed LigaSure Exact Dissector, a remanufactured surgical instrument, not an AI-powered diagnostic device. Therefore, the concepts of "acceptance criteria," "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria," "test set," "ground truth," "experts," "adjudication," "MRMC study," and "training set" as typically applied to AI/ML diagnostic devices, are not applicable in this context.

Instead, the submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical testing of functional characteristics, materials, and technological aspects.

Here's how to reframe the information based on the provided text for a non-AI medical device:

The device under review is the Medline ReNewal Remanufactured LigaSure Exact Dissector, without Nano-coating (LF2019). This is a reprocessed version of a legally marketed predicate device. The "acceptance criteria" in this context refer to demonstrating that the reprocessed device performs equivalently to the original and meets necessary safety and functional standards.

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

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

The document summarizes testing categories but does not provide specific sample sizes or provenance information for each test performed (e.g., how many devices were tested for functional performance or biocompatibility). This level of detail is typically found in the full 510(k) submission, not the summary document.

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

This concept is not applicable for a reprocessed surgical instrument. The assessment is based on quantifiable engineering and biological tests, not expert interpretation of diagnostic images or clinical scenarios.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

Not applicable. Testing involves objective measurements and predefined pass/fail criteria for mechanical and biological performance.

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 a reprocessed surgical instrument, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical surgical instrument.

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

For this type of device, "ground truth" is established through:

• Engineering specifications and performance standards: The device must meet predefined mechanical, electrical, and functional parameters.
• Biological safety standards: Biocompatibility testing compares material responses to established safe limits.
• Sterilization efficacy standards: Validation ensures a specified sterility assurance level (SAL).
• Comparison to predicate device performance: The reprocessed device is expected to perform comparably to the original during functional tests.

8. The sample size for the training set:

Not applicable. There is no "training set" for a reprocessed surgical instrument.

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

Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed St. Jude Medical Livewire Steerable Electrophysiology Catheter can be used in the evaluation of a variety of cardiac arrhythmias from endocardial and intravascular sites.

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed St. Jude Medical Livewire Steerable Electrophysiology Catheter is a flexible electrode catheter constructed of a polyurethane insulation/shaft and incorporates platinum electrodes. The active tip may be manipulated by a remote means located at the proximal end of the catheter.

Here's an analysis of the provided text, focusing on the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them:

Disclaimer: The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a reprocessed medical device. These summaries typically focus on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical testing rather than conducting new clinical trials for effectiveness in the way an AI/ML algorithm might. Therefore, many of the requested points related to AI/ML clinical studies (e.g., MRMC studies, ground truth establishment for training sets) are not directly applicable or explicitly stated in this type of document. I will address the points as best as possible given the information provided.

Device: Medline ReNewal Reprocessed St. Jude Medical Livewire Steerable Electrophysiology Catheter

The document demonstrates that the reprocessed device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device, St. Jude Medical MediGuide Enabled Livewire Steerable Electrophysiology Catheter (K151622). The acceptance criteria are primarily defined by successful completion of various non-clinical performance, safety, and reprocessing validation tests, ensuring the reprocessed device maintains the same technological characteristics and performance as the original predicate device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

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

The document does not explicitly state the specific sample sizes for each non-clinical test. It lists the types of tests performed. For reprocessed devices, the "test set" would typically involve multiple units of the reprocessed devices subjected to each of the listed functional, cleaning, biocompatibility, and sterilization tests.

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated for each test. It would be an industry standard sample size for each specific test (e.g., a certain number of devices for tensile strength, a certain number for biocompatibility assays).
• Data Provenance: Retrospective (reprocessed existing devices from St. Jude Medical) and prospective (testing performed on these reprocessed devices). The "country of origin of the data" is not specified, but the submission is to the U.S. FDA, implying compliance with U.S. regulatory standards and potentially testing done within the U.S. or by labs recognized by U.S. standards.

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

This point is not applicable here. This submission is for a reprocessed electrophysiology catheter, which is a hardware device, not an AI/ML diagnostic or image analysis algorithm. Therefore, there is no "ground truth" in the clinical AI sense (e.g., expert labels on images) to be established by experts for an AI test set. The "ground truth" for this device is based on physical and biological testing against established engineering and safety standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable in the context of an AI/ML algorithm's clinical performance. The "adjudication" for this type of device is the assessment of test results against predefined acceptance criteria (e.g., pass/fail for functional tests, within limits for chemical residuals, absence of adverse effects for biocompatibility).

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 a reprocessed medical device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. No MRMC study was performed as it is irrelevant to the substantial equivalence of a physical catheter.

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

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

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

The "ground truth" for this device's performance relies on a combination of:

• Engineering Specifications: Performance parameters (e.g., tensile strength, electrical properties) are measured against established engineering standards and the specifications of the original predicate device.
• Biological/Chemical Standards: Residual limits for cleaning agents, sterility assurance levels, and biocompatibility endpoints are evaluated against recognized biological and chemical safety standards (e.g., ISO standards for biocompatibility).
• Predicate Device Performance: The original, new St. Jude Medical Livewire catheter establishes the benchmark for "ground truth" performance and safety, to which the reprocessed device must demonstrate substantial equivalence.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. This is a medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm. There is no concept of a "training set" in the context of this 510(k) submission.

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

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

Ask a specific question about this device