Search Results

The Dib UltraNav Transseptal Catheter System is used for the percutaneous introduction of various types of cardiovascular catheters and guidewires to all heart chambers, including the left atrium via transseptal puncture.

The Dib UltraNav Transseptal Catheter System is a single-use, dual lumen, non-steerable intravascular catheter and handle to be used during a percutaneous procedure to support visualization and puncture of the septum. It is to be used to cross the interatrial septum and enable placement of a guidewire into the left side of the heart. The UltraNav catheter system is used with off-the-shelf transseptal needles and ultrasound catheters (not provided).

The provided text describes a medical device, the Dib UltraNav Transseptal Catheter System, and its acceptance criteria as well as the studies conducted to demonstrate its safety and substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices. However, the document does not contain a specific table of acceptance criteria with corresponding device performance metrics in the format requested. It outlines the types of tests performed and states that "All test requirements were met."

Therefore, I will extract the available information and structure it as best as possible to answer your questions.

Here's the information regarding the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

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

The document states that "All test requirements were met" for the mechanical, biocompatibility, sterilization, packaging, and animal testing. However, it does not provide specific quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed numerical performance results for each test. Instead, it lists the types of tests conducted and implies that the performance met regulatory and internal requirements.

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

• Mechanical, Biocompatibility, Sterilization, and Packaging Tests: The document does not specify general sample sizes for these tests. It only lists the types of tests performed and the standards followed. The provenance is internal company testing and compliance with international standards.
• Animal Testing: The test set for the animal study consisted of eight canines. The document does not specify the country of origin of this data, but it was an acute GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) animal study, implying prospective data collection under controlled conditions.
• Usability Assessment: The test set involved two independent users.

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)

• For the animal study, the "ground truth" (assessment of safety, accurate septum puncture, and guidewire delivery) was established through observation and measurement during the study. While experts (e.g., veterinary surgeons, clinicians) would have been involved in conducting and evaluating the animal study, the document does not specify the number or qualifications of these experts explicitly for establishing ground truth, beyond indicating it was a GLP study.
• For the usability assessment, the "ground truth" (absence of operator use errors leading to serious adverse events) was established by two independent users, who evaluated the device. Their specific qualifications are not detailed beyond being "independent users" likely qualified to operate medical devices.

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

• The document does not describe a formal "adjudication method" in the context of expert consensus (like 2+1 or 3+1) for establishing ground truth from human readers. The tests performed are primarily laboratory-based or direct observation (animal study, usability).

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, a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not conducted. This device is a physical catheter system, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, so the concept of human readers improving with or without AI assistance does not apply.

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

• No, a standalone algorithm performance study was not done. This device is a physical medical instrument, not an algorithm.

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

• Mechanical, Biocompatibility, Sterilization, Packaging: Ground truth for these studies is based on quantifiable measurements against established engineering standards (ISO standards, internal requirements) and biological compatibility assay results.
• Animal Testing: Ground truth was established through direct observation and measurement during an acute GLP animal study, comparing the device's performance (safety, septum puncture accuracy, guidewire delivery) to a reference device.
• Usability Assessment: Ground truth was established by direct observation and assessment by independent users regarding the occurrence of operator use errors.

8. The sample size for the training set

• The concept of a "training set" is not applicable here as the Dib UltraNav Transseptal Catheter System is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm. Therefore, no training set was used.

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

• As there was no training set, this question is not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device