Search Results

The Biomerix Vascular Occlusion Device is intended for arterial and venous embolization in the peripheral vasculature.

The Biomerix Vascular Occlusion Device is a cylindrical device made from polycarbonate-urethane. The length of the implant is 15 mm, and it is available in diameters of 4, 6, and 8 mm. The Biomerix Vascular Occlusion Device is provided sterile for single use in its uncompressed state. The device is compressed and delivered to the target location through a commercially available peripheral introducer (5-7 F). A Loader is provided to assist with introducing the implant into the delivery catheter.

The provided text describes the Biomerix Vascular Occlusion Device but does not contain the specific acceptance criteria or a detailed study proving the device meets those criteria in a format that would allow for a precise response to all parts of your request.

Here's an analysis of what information can be extracted and what is missing:

Information Present in the Document:

• Intended Use: The device is "intended for arterial and venous embolization in the peripheral vasculature." This is a key part of what any performance study would need to address.
• Performance Data Overview: The document lists general categories of performance data collected:
  • Material testing to demonstrate suitable material properties.
  • Bench testing to demonstrate the device meets performance specifications for loading, deliverability, and recovery.
  • Biocompatibility testing to demonstrate safety and biostability.
  • Animal testing to demonstrate equivalent performance to Cook Embolization Coils in terms of "time to occlusion, migration, recanalization, and tissue response."

Missing Information (Crucial for a complete answer to your request):

• Specific Acceptance Criteria: The document mentions "performance specifications" for bench testing and "equivalent performance" for animal testing, but it does not quantify these. For example, it doesn't state:
  • What is the specified loading force?
  • What is the acceptable delivery time or force?
  • What is the defined "time to occlusion" in animal studies (e.g., 95% occlusion within X minutes/hours)?
  • What are the acceptable limits for migration or recanalization?
  • What are the specific parameters for "tissue response"?
• Detailed Study Design and Results: The document summarizes that studies were done but lacks the specifics required for your numbered points.

Based on the provided text, here is the information that can be extracted, and where information is missing:

(1) A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

(2) Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• Sample Size (Test Set): Not specified.
• Data Provenance: Not specified (studies are generally described as "Material testing," "Bench testing," "Biocompatibility testing," and "Animal testing" without country of origin or retrospective/prospective designation for the animal model).

(3) Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• Not applicable/Not specified, as this appears to be a medical device performance (mechanical, biological, and animal model) study, not a diagnostic AI study requiring expert adjudication of images.

(4) Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• Not applicable/Not specified, as this appears to be a medical device performance study, not a diagnostic AI study requiring expert adjudication of images.

(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. This study is focused on the physical and biological performance of a vascular occlusion device, not on AI assistance for human readers of medical images.

(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 (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

• For animal testing, the ground truth appears to be direct observation of physiological parameters (time to occlusion, migration, recanalization) and potentially histological examination for tissue response comparison against the predicate device.
• For bench testing, the ground truth would be engineering specifications and measurements.
• For biocompatibility, the ground truth would be established biological safety standards and in-vitro/in-vivo test results.

(8) The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm requiring a training set.

(9) How the ground truth for the training set was established

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

Ask a specific question about this device