Search Results

The 14 Fr Low Profile Introducer Set is intended to facilitate access to the vascular system for the introduction and removal of the Impella CP Catheter and ancillary devices.

The Abiomed 14Fr Low Profile Introducer Set is a sterile, single-use, prescription device. The 14Fr Low Profile Introducer Set consists of an introducer sheath and a tapered sheath dilator which is compatible with an 0.035" quidewire. The 14Fr Low Profile Introducer Set is kitted with an 0.035" access quidewire, supplemental dilators and a luer adapter for convenience to help facilitate insertion.

The 14Fr Low Profile Introducer Sheath consists of a sheath hub with three-way stopcock and flush port at its proximal end a sheath body at its distal end. The sheath hub features an introducer cap, hemostasis valve, side-port with three-way stopcock and flush port, a butterfly (suture pad), and connects to the dilator hub. The coil reinforced polymer sheath body has an insertion profile of 14 Fr to allow the insertion and removal of the Impella CP Catheter and ancillary devices. The 14 Fr Low Profile Dilator consists of a dilator body, a tapered tip at the distal end, and a hub at the proximal end, which connects with the sheath hub. Additionally, the 14Fr dilator has a hydrophilic coating to aid in insertion of the device into the vasculature.

This document describes the FDA's 510(k) clearance for the Abiomed 14Fr Low Profile Introducer Set. The information provided heavily focuses on the comparison to predicate devices and performance testing. However, it does not explicitly state acceptance criteria in a quantitative format, nor does it detail a clinical study with human patients, as the clearance was based on bench testing and substantial equivalence to predicate devices.

Let's break down the available information based on your request:

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

The document broadly states that the device "met the acceptance criteria," but it does not specify what those criteria are in a numerical or categorical table format for each test. Instead, it lists the types of tests performed.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified for each individual bench test. The document mentions "Performance testing (bench) was completed," but doesn't detail the number of units tested for each specific test.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify the country of origin of the data. The study was a retrospective evaluation based on bench testing, as it states "No clinical data were required to demonstrate substantial equivalence."

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

• This information is not applicable as there was no test set involving human data or expert review to establish ground truth in the traditional sense for medical imaging or diagnostic devices. The acceptance was based on engineering and biocompatibility bench testing.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable. There was no human-reviewed test set requiring adjudication in the context of this 510(k) submission.

5. If a multi-reader, multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, and its effect size:

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. The document explicitly states, "No clinical data were required to demonstrate substantial equivalence." This type of study would involve human readers and clinical cases, which was not part of this clearance process.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a physical medical introducer set, not an AI algorithm. Therefore, "standalone" performance for an algorithm is not relevant. The performance evaluated was the device's physical and functional attributes through bench testing.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• The "ground truth" for this device's performance was established via engineering specifications, material science standards, and biocompatibility standards (e.g., ISO 10993-1). For example, "leak testing" would have a pre-defined maximum allowable leak rate as its ground truth, based on engineering requirements for a safe and effective introducer.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This device is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning.

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

• Not applicable. As stated above, there is no "training set" for this type of device.

Ask a specific question about this device