Search Filters

Search Results

Found 2 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    Gillinov-Cosgrove Clip (ACH2); AtriClip LAA Exclusion System with preloaded Gillinov-Cosgrove Clip (PRO1); AtriClip
    LAA Exclusion System with preloaded Gillinov-Cosgrove Clip (PRO2); AtriClip PRO-V LAA Exclusion System

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The AtriClip® LAA Exclusion System is indicated for the exclusion of the heart's left atrial appendage, performed under direct visualization and in conjunction with other cardiac surgical procedures.

    Direct visualization, in this context, requires that the surgeon is able to see the heart directly, with or without assistance from a camera, endoscope, etc., or other appropriate viewing technologies.

    Device Description

    The AtriClip LAA Exclusion System consists of a single use, sterile, self-closing, implantable Clip preloaded on a Single Use Clip Applier along with a selection quide. When closed, the Clip applies uniform pressure over the length of the Clip to ensure consistent, reproducible, and secure exclusion of the left atrial appendage (LAA). The Clip is then deployed and is left as a permanent implant and excludes the LAA resulting in electrical isolation of the LAA. Preclinical animal studies (Kamohara 2005,2006) demonstrate that complete exclusion with the Clip also results in acute and chronic electrical isolation of the LAA. A human clinical study (Starck 2012) has demonstrated acute electrical isolation. Chronic electrical isolation has not been evaluated in human clinical studies. The Clip is available in the following lengths to accommodate difference sizes of LAA: 35 mm, 40 mm, 45 mm, and 50 mm. The Clip Appliers are disposable devices with a handle, shaft, suture anchors, articulation controls, and deployment loop/jaws which contain the Clip.

    AI/ML Overview

    This document is a 510(k) premarket notification from the FDA, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of a modified medical device to a previously cleared predicate device. It explicitly states that no performance data was generated for the modified device as the changes were deemed not to significantly alter the device's design, performance, or intended use. Therefore, the document does not describe acceptance criteria for a new study or present results from such a study for the modified AtriClip LAA Exclusion System.

    It states: "The proposed changes do not include any change to design or performance specifications of the AtriClip LAA Exclusion System. Additionally, the proposed changes did not modify the intended use, therefore the previously submitted bench and animal data remain valid for the AtriClip LAA Exclusion System."

    This means that the substantial equivalence determination relies on the performance data of the predicate device (K210293), not new data from the modified device in this submission (K233407).

    Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the modified device meets these criteria, as this document asserts no such new study was performed for K233407.

    The document does not contain any of the following information:

    • A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance for the modified device.
    • Sample size used for a test set or data provenance for a new study.
    • Number of experts or their qualifications for establishing ground truth for a new study.
    • Adjudication method for a new study.
    • Information about a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study for the modified device.
    • Information about a standalone performance study for the modified device.
    • Type of ground truth used for a new study.
    • Sample size for a training set (as no new AI/software component is mentioned).
    • How ground truth for a training set was established (as no new AI/software component is mentioned).
    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    K Number
    K172742
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2017-10-11

    (29 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    878.4300
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    AtriClip LAA Exclusion System with preloaded Gillinov-Cosgrove Clip (PRO2)

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The AtriClip LAA Exclusion System is indicated for the occlusion of the heart's left atrial appendage, performed under direct visualization and in conjunction with other cardiac surgical procedures.

    Direct visualization, in this context, requires that the surgeon is able to see the heart directly, with or without assistance from a camera, endoscope, etc., or other appropriate viewing technologies.

    Device Description

    The AtriClip PRO2 LAA Exclusion System consists of a single use, sterile, self-closing, implantable Clip preloaded on a Single Use Clip Applier along with a selection guide. When closed, the Clip applies uniform pressure over the length of the Clip to ensure consistent, reproducible, and secure occlusion of the left atrial appendage (LAA). The clip is then deployed and is left as a permanent implant. The Clip is available in the following lengths to accommodate different sizes of LAA: 35 mm, 40 mm, 45 mm, and 50 mm.

    The Clip Applier is a disposable device with a handle, shaft, suture anchors, articulation controls, and deployment loop which contains the Clip. This Special 510(k) contains modifications to the AtriClip LAA Exclusion System (PRO2) which are intended to 1.) mitigate inconsistencies of spring return force post deployment of the clip, and 2.) aid in manufacturability of the device.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the AtriClip® LAA Exclusion System with preloaded Gillinov-Cosgrove® Clip (PRO2). This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared device, rather than providing a detailed study that proves the device meets specific performance criteria. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, sample sizes, expert qualifications, and ground truth establishment is not present in this regulatory submission.

    However, I can extract the following information and indicate where details are missing:

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

    The document does not explicitly list quantitative acceptance criteria with reported device performance values. Instead, it states that the modifications "Demonstrated equivalency in performance" and "Did not raise any new issues of safety."

    Acceptance Criteria (Implied)Reported Device Performance
    Equivalency in performance to predicate deviceDemonstrated equivalency in performance (details of performance metrics not provided)
    No new safety concernsDid not raise any new issues of safety

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

    The document mentions "Non-clinical Bench Testing" including "Mechanical Testing" and "Reliability Testing." However, it does not specify the sample sizes used for these tests. Data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is also not provided as these are described as non-clinical bench tests.

    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 the submission describes non-clinical bench testing for mechanical and reliability aspects of the device, not a study involving human assessment or interpretation where experts would establish ground truth.

    4. Adjudication method for the test set

    This information is not applicable for non-clinical bench testing.

    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

    An MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not performed as this submission relates to a mechanical implantable clip system, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretive device.

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

    This information is not applicable as the device is a mechanical implantable clip system, not an algorithm or AI.

    7. The type of ground truth used

    For the non-clinical bench testing, the "ground truth" would be established by objective, verifiable mechanical and reliability testing standards and measurements. The specific standards or methods used to define acceptable performance for these tests are not detailed in this summary.

    8. The sample size for the training set

    This information is not applicable as the device is a mechanical implantable clip system and does not involve AI or algorithms that require a "training set."

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

    This information is not applicable as there is no training set for this type of device.

    In summary, this 510(k) submission primarily focuses on demonstrating that minor modifications to an existing device (AtriClip® LAA Exclusion System, PRO2) do not alter its fundamental performance, safety, or effectiveness compared to the predicate device. The evidence provided is based on non-clinical bench testing.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1