Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K013789
    Date Cleared
    2001-12-06

    (22 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    870.1250
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    EXCELSIOR SL-10 MICROCATHETER, MODELS 168581, 168381, 168181, 168189

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

    The Excelsior SL-10 Microcatheter is intended to assist in the delivery of diagnostic agents, such as contrast media, and therapeutic agents, such as occlusion coils, into the peripheral, coronary and neurovasculature.

    Device Description

    The Excelsior SL-10 Microcatheter is a single lumen device designed to aid the physician in accessing distal vasculature when used with a guide catheter and guidewire. The device shaft is comprised of graded materials of varying durometers, from a flexible tip to a semirigid proximal end. Stainless steel wire reinforcement provides for strength during torque transmission while the inner liner provides for lubricity. The hub / strain reliefs provide for kink resistance from the proximal end. A luer fitting on the catheter hub is used for the attachment of accessories. The radiopaque tip with one or two markers allows for visualization under fluoroscopy. The outer surface is coated with a hydrophilic coating which reduces friction during navigation in the vasculature. A steam shaping mandrel accessory is packaged with the catheter.

    AI/ML Overview

    This submission describes the Excelsior™ SL-10 Microcatheter. The manufacturer is seeking substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on in vitro performance testing.

    Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information provided:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    The submission does not explicitly provide a table of acceptance criteria with specific thresholds. Instead, it states that "All testing indicates that the device is safe and performs according to its intended use." This is common for predicate device comparisons where the performance is expected to be at least equivalent to the predicate, rather than meeting a specific numerical benchmark.

    However, based on the testing mentioned, we can infer the performance aspects evaluated:

    Performance AspectReported Device Performance
    Dimensional InspectionPerformed, implied to meet specifications
    Tensile StrengthPerformed, implied to meet safety and function
    Burst PressurePerformed, implied to meet safety and function
    Flow RatePerformed, implied to meet efficacy requirements
    Withdrawal Force TestingPerformed, implied to meet safety and function
    BiocompatibilityConfirmed according to ISO-10993

    2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and the Data Provenance

    The document does not specify the sample sizes used for the in vitro performance tests. The data provenance is not explicitly stated as retrospective or prospective, nor are countries of origin mentioned. However, since these are in vitro performance tests, they are typically conducted in a laboratory setting by the manufacturer.

    3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and the Qualifications of Those Experts

    Not applicable. The ground truth for this device is established through objective in vitro measurements and comparison to predicate devices, rather than expert consensus on diagnostic interpretations.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    Not applicable. As noted above, the "ground truth" is based on objective measurements and established standards (like ISO-10993) and comparison to predicate devices, not subjective expert reviews requiring adjudication.

    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

    Not applicable. This is a medical device (microcatheter), not an AI diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is irrelevant.

    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

    The "ground truth" for the performance claims is based on:

    • Objective Measurements: Results of the in vitro performance tests (dimensional, tensile, burst, flow rate, withdrawal force).
    • Established Standards: Biocompatibility verified according to ISO-10993.
    • Predicate Device Equivalence: The primary "ground truth" for regulatory clearance is substantial equivalence to the legally marketed predicate devices (Tracker-10 Microcatheter and Excelsior 1018 Microcatheter) in terms of functionality, intended use, design, materials, and method of operation.

    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

    Not applicable. This device is not an AI algorithm; therefore, there is no "training set."

    9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

    Not applicable, as there is no training set.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1