Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K200268
    Date Cleared
    2020-06-03

    (121 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    870.5150
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Device Name :

    Halo™ Single-Loop Snare Kit

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

    The Halo™ Single-Loop Snare Kit is intended for use in the cardiovascular system or hollow viscous to retrieve and manipulate foreign objects.

    Device Description

    Halo™ Single-Loop Snare Kit contains: (1) Snare, (1) Snare Catheter, (1) Introducer and (1) Torque Handle. The snare is constructed of a flexible and radiopaque loop. The pre-formed snare loop can be introduced through the snare catheter without risk of snare deformation because of the snare's super-elastic construction. The snare catheter is constructed of flexible tubing and contains a radiopaque marker band.

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Halo™ Single-Loop Snare Kit. This documentation is for a medical device (a snare kit), not an AI device or software. Therefore, the questions related to AI device performance, such as sample size for test/training sets, experts for ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, and training set ground truth establishment, are not applicable to this submission.

    The document discusses non-clinical performance tests conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices. These tests are focused on the physical and material properties of the snare kit.

    Here's an analysis based on the provided text, focusing on what is available:

    Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Non-Clinical):

    The document states that "A series of testing was conducted in accordance with protocols based on requirements outlined in guidances and industry standards and the below were shown to meet the acceptance criteria that were determined to demonstrate substantial equivalence."

    While specific numerical acceptance criteria and exact performance results are not provided in a table format, the document lists the types of tests performed and indicates that the device met the acceptance criteria for each.

    Acceptance Criteria (Test Category)Reported Device Performance (Met/Not Met)
    Tensile strengthMet Acceptance Criteria
    Liquid leakageMet Acceptance Criteria
    Air leakageMet Acceptance Criteria
    Corrosion ResistanceMet Acceptance Criteria
    System Tip FlexibilityMet Acceptance Criteria
    Tip Flexibility – Snare & CatheterMet Acceptance Criteria
    Snare Flexing & Fracture TestMet Acceptance Criteria
    Catheter Flexural ModulusMet Acceptance Criteria
    Catheter Kink TestMet Acceptance Criteria
    Marker Band Pull TestMet Acceptance Criteria
    Torque Strength TestMet Acceptance Criteria
    Simulative UseMet Acceptance Criteria
    RadiopacityMet Acceptance Criteria
    ParticulateMet Acceptance Criteria
    Luer TestingMet Acceptance Criteria
    Shipping TestMet Acceptance Criteria
    Cytotoxicity (ISO 10993-5)Met Acceptance Criteria
    Sensitization (ISO 10993-10)Met Acceptance Criteria
    Intracutaneous Irritation (ISO 10993-10)Met Acceptance Criteria
    Acute Systemic Toxicity (ISO 10993-11)Met Acceptance Criteria
    Material Mediated Pyrogen (ISO 10993-11)Met Acceptance Criteria
    Hemocompatibility (ISO10993-4)Met Acceptance Criteria
    - ASTM Hemolysis Direct and Indirect ContactMet Acceptance Criteria
    - Complement Activation, SC5b-9Met Acceptance Criteria
    - Platelet and Leucocyte CountsMet Acceptance Criteria
    - Partial Thromboplastin Time (PTT)Met Acceptance Criteria

    Regarding the AI-specific questions:

    The questions provided pertain to the evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) powered medical device. The document describes a Halo™ Single-Loop Snare Kit, which is a physical device used for retrieving and manipulating foreign objects in the cardiovascular system or hollow viscous. This is a traditional medical device, not an AI/ML software or algorithm.

    Therefore, the following questions are not applicable to this specific FDA submission:

    1. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. This is for a physical device, not an AI model.
    2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for an AI model is not relevant here.
    3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. Adjudication of expert annotations is for AI model ground truth.
    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: Not applicable. MRMC studies are for evaluating AI's impact on human readers.
    5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. There is no algorithm.
    6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not applicable. Ground truth for an AI model is not relevant here.
    7. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. There is no AI model to train.
    8. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. There is no AI model to train.

    In summary, the provided FDA document is for a traditional physical medical device, not an AI-powered one, hence most of the detailed questions regarding AI study methodology are not relevant to this specific submission. The performance assessment relied on non-clinical (bench and material) testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1