Search Results

The EmPro™ EPS/Nanoparasol™ EPS is indicated for use as a guidewire to contain and remove embolic material (thrombus/debris) while performing angioplasty and stenting procedures in carotid arteries. The diameter of the artery at the site of the filter placement should be between 3.0 and 6.5 mm.

MicroVention's Embolic Protection System (EPS) is marketed under two names: EmPro™ Embolic Protection System and Nanoparasol™ Embolic Protection System. The Embolic Protection System (EPS) is designed to capture and remove dislodged debris during a carotid interventional procedure. It consists of three basic components and additional accessories:

1. An Embolic Protection Device (EPD) consisting of a nitinol braided mesh filter with an atraumatic distal tip built on an integrated .014" PTFE coated stainless steel capture delivery wire.
2. A 3.5F delivery catheter with 150 cm length.
3. A 5F retrieval catheter with 150 cm working length. Accessories include a wire introducer, EPD loading cover, sheath introducer and a torque device. Catheters are provided in two separate dispenser coils.

The provided text describes the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets these criteria for the EmPro™ EPS/Nanoparasol™ EPS. This device is an embolic protection system indicated for use as a guidewire to contain and remove embolic material during angioplasty and stenting procedures in carotid arteries.

Here's the breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size for Clinical Study (Test Set): 256 patients (n=256) in the Intent-To-Treat (ITT) population.
• Data Provenance: The study was a "multicenter, single-arm, interventional study" called the CONFIDENCE study (IDE G140249). While the specific countries are not mentioned, FDA submissions typically involve studies conducted in the US or under equivalent international standards. The study design is prospective.
• Sample Size for Animal Study: 6 animals (porcine model).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

The document does not explicitly state the number or qualifications of experts used to establish the ground truth for the clinical study's endpoint definitions (MAE, technical success). Clinical trials typically involve a clinical events committee (CEC) composed of expert physicians to independently adjudicate events like death, stroke, and MI, but this level of detail is not provided in this regulatory summary.

For the animal study, the document mentions "histological analysis" and "neurological assessments" were performed, implying expert evaluation, but the number and specific qualifications of the experts are not detailed.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

The document does not explicitly detail an adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the clinical study's primary and secondary endpoints. For a multi-center clinical study with composite endpoints like MAE, it is standard practice to have a Clinical Events Committee (CEC) adjudicate events, often with multiple readers and a pre-defined adjudication process, but the specifics are not provided here.

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 an embolic protection system, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, so such a study would not be applicable. The performance evaluated relates to the mechanical and clinical outcomes of the device itself and its ability to capture emboli, not human reader performance with or without AI assistance.

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

No, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was not done. This device is a physical medical device (an embolic protection system), not an algorithm or AI system. Its performance is evaluated in vivo (animal and human clinical studies) and in vitro (bench testing), not as a standalone algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

• Clinical Study (CONFIDENCE study): The ground truth for the primary endpoint (MAE) was based on clinical outcomes: death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI), confirmed by medical records and follow-up. For secondary endpoints like technical success (e.g., EPS successfully inserted, deployed, retrieved), the ground truth would be based on procedural observations and documentation. This represents outcomes data and procedural success data.
• Animal Study: Ground truth was established through direct observation during intervention (e.g., tracking, deployment, retrieval), post-intervention assessment (thrombus formation, particulate capture, device damage, neurological dysfunction), and post-explantation histopathology/histology to evaluate tissue response.

8. The sample size for the training set

This document does not describe a "training set" in the context of an AI/ML model. The studies described are for the validation and performance evaluation of a physical medical device. Therefore, a training set sample size, as understood in AI/ML development, is not applicable or provided.

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

As there is no mention of a "training set" for an AI/ML model, this question is not applicable. The device's design and engineering would have been informed by a vast amount of existing medical knowledge, material science, and prior device development, rather than a specific "training set" with established ground truth in the AI/ML sense.

Ask a specific question about this device