Search Results

The Bronchial Catheter System is intended to be used for foreign body removal and bronchial hemostasis.

Not Found

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the Bronchial Catheter System, focusing on acceptance criteria and study details.

Based on the provided document, there is no detailed information regarding specific acceptance criteria (numerical targets for performance metrics) or a comprehensive clinical study proving the device meets such criteria. The document is a 510(k) Summary for a medical device, which typically focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than conducting new efficacy studies with formal acceptance criteria.

The information primarily states that the device's performance was "evaluated in vitro and shown to be equivalent to the performance of the predicate devices." This implies a comparison, but the specifics of what was measured, how it was evaluated, and the numerical thresholds for "equivalence" are not provided.

Therefore, many of the requested sections below will state that the information is not provided in the given text.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details

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

   • Not provided. The document only mentions "in vitro" evaluation, which implies laboratory tests, not human test subjects or patient data.

2. 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. The "test set" described is in vitro performance evaluation, not a clinical study requiring human ground truth.

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

   • Not applicable. No human adjudication method is described for in vitro performance evaluation.

4. 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. An MRMC study was not conducted as this is a physical medical device (catheter system) for foreign body removal and hemostasis, not an AI diagnostic or assistance tool.

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

   • No. This is a physical device, not an algorithm.

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

   • Not applicable. For in vitro performance, "ground truth" would typically be established by established engineering or scientific measurement standards for performance characteristics (e.g., tensile strength, flow rates, maneuverability in a model). Details on these specific standards or measurements are not provided.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set in that context.

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

   • Not applicable. As above, no training set for an AI/ML algorithm is mentioned.

Summary of Study Limitations based on the provided text:

The provided 510(k) summary focuses solely on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through in vitro performance evaluation and biocompatibility testing. It explicitly states: "The performance of the Bronchial Balloon Catheter was evaluated in vitro and shown to be equivalent to the performance of the predicate devices." This means there was no clinical study described in this document with human participants, defined acceptance criteria for clinical outcomes, or the use of experts to establish clinical ground truth. The device is cleared based on its similarity in design, materials, and in vitro operational characteristics to existing, legally marketed devices.

Ask a specific question about this device