Search Results
Found 2 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(205 days)
Headway 27 Microcatheter
The Headway Microcatheter is intended for general intravascular use, including the peripheral, coronary and neuro vasculature for the infusion of diagnostic agents, such as contrast media, and therapeutic agents, such as occlusion coils.
The Headway 27 Microcatheter is a single lumen catheter designed to be introduced over a steerable guidewire to access small, tortuous vasculature. The semi-rigid proximal section transitions to a flexible distal tip to facilitate advancement through vessels. Dual radiopaque markers at the distal end facilitate fluoroscopic visualization. An introducer sheath and shaping mandrel are also provided.
The provided text describes the MicroVention, Inc. Headway 27 Microcatheter and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Headway 27 Microcatheter, K110813). The document primarily focuses on bench testing and biocompatibility testing to demonstrate this equivalence.
Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study data based on your request:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
Bench Testing Category | Acceptance Criteria | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|---|
Surface Contamination | • Liquid on surface | |
• Particulate on external surface | ||
• Surface defects/sharp edges | • Free from uncured hydrophilic coating. | |
• No surface particulate > .02 mm² per tappi chart | ||
• Free from surface defect/no sharp edges | ||
• Embedded particulate acceptable if OD is in specification | ||
• Free from damage | ||
Dimensional Attributes | • Catheter effective length | |
• Catheter lumen | ||
• Catheter outer diameter | ||
• Length of distal OD (2.2Fr section) | • 150 ± 2 cm | |
• .027" (0.69 mm) | ||
• nominal .040"/.034-.028" (1.0/.86-.71 mm) | ||
• ≥ 6cm | ||
Force at Break | Device shall not break during use | ≥ 1.12 lbs (5.0 N) for outer diameters from .030" to .045" (.76 to 1.1 mm) |
Freedom from Leakage (Liquid) | (low pressure - long duration) | |
Device shall not leak fluids | No liquid leaking from hub and catheter shaft at 46 psi (317.2 kPa) for 30 second duration | |
Freedom from Leakage (Air) | (high pressure - short time) | |
Device shall not leak fluids | No liquid leaking from hub and catheter shaft at 300 psi/2068 kPa (rated burst pressure) for 10 second duration | |
Burst Pressure of Catheter | Air shall not leak into device | No air leaking into syringe for 15 seconds |
Dynamic Burst Pressure | Microcatheter will not burst statically below rated burst pressure. | Microcatheter: will not burst below 300 psi (2068 kPa) |
Durability and Lubricity of Hydrophilic Coating | Verification that hydrophilic coating does not delaminate during use | Rated 3 or higher (simulated use) |
Tip Shape and Tip Retention | Not explicitly stated, but implied to retain original shape sufficiently | Tip retain better than 55% of its original shape |
Simulated Use | Not explicitly stated, but implied to perform acceptably in tested categories | Rated 3 or higher in tested categories |
Compatibility with Agents | Not explicitly stated, but implied to perform acceptably with applicable agents | Rated 3 or higher in tested applicable categories |
Flow Rate | Reference data | N/A (Reference data, not performance against a specific criterion for this submission) |
Kink Resistance | Not explicitly stated, but implied to be comparable to competitors | Equivalent to or better kink resistance than competitive |
Catheter Stiffness | Document stiffness using Tinius Olsen - reference data only | N/A (Reference data, not performance against a specific criterion for this submission) |
Catheter Flexural Fatigue | The catheter must have acceptable results per the following conditions: |
- Flexural fatigue: simulated use, tip shaping testing
- Hoop stress fatigue: flow rate, dynamic burst, liquid leakage | Passed |
| Catheter Particle Testing | Per USP - less than 25 particles greater than 10 microns and less than 3 particles greater than 25 micron | Passed |
| Dead Space | Reference data | N/A (Reference data, not performance against a specific criterion for this submission) |
| Torque Test | 50 rotations without catheter breakage or equivalent to competitive product catheters. | Passed |
| DMSO Test | Functional performance and chemical stability | Passed |
| Biocompatibility (Cytotoxicity MEM Elution) | Cell culture tested with test article exhibited slight reactivity (Grade 1) | Non-toxic |
| Biocompatibility (Cytotoxicity Cell Culture Agar Overlay) | Grade 2: zone limited to under specimen | Non-toxic |
| Biocompatibility (Sensitization Guinea Pig Maximization Test) | Grade 0: No visible change | Non-irritant |
| Biocompatibility (Irritation Intracutaneous Reactivity Evaluation Test) | Comparative between control and test article 10%. No reaction found. | Non-toxic effects |
| Biocompatibility (Systemic Toxicity Rabbit Pyrogen Test) | Temperature increases was 0.0℃ from baseline. | Non-pyrogenic |
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
The document describes general bench testing and biocompatibility testing. It does not specify the sample sizes (number of units tested) for each individual bench test or the biocompatibility studies.
The data provenance is not explicitly stated as retrospective or prospective, nor does it mention the country of origin of the data. Given the context of a 510(k) submission, this data would typically be generated by the manufacturer (MicroVention, Inc., USA) as part of their device development and validation process, likely in a controlled laboratory environment.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
This information is not provided in the document. The studies performed are primarily physical and chemical bench tests, and in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility tests, which do not typically involve human expert interpretation for "ground truth" establishment in the way, for example, a diagnostic image review would. For "rated 3 or higher," "passed," etc., these would be based on predefined objective criteria in test protocols, not subjective expert consensus.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
This information is not applicable and not provided in the document. Adjudication methods are typically used in studies involving human interpretation or decision-making, such as clinical trials or diagnostic accuracy studies, to resolve discrepancies among multiple reviewers. The tests described are objective, physical, chemical, and biological assessments.
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:
This is not applicable and not provided. The device in question is a microcatheter, a physical medical device used for intravascular delivery. It is not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive technology that would involve "human readers" or "AI assistance" in the sense of an MRMC study.
6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
This is not applicable and not provided for the same reasons as point 5. The device is a physical tool, not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
The "ground truth" for the bench tests are the pre-defined engineering specifications and performance criteria for the physical properties of the catheter (e.g., length, diameter, burst pressure, kink resistance, force at break). For the biocompatibility tests, the "ground truth" is established by standardized ISO 10993 biological evaluation test methods which define acceptable biological responses (e.g., non-toxic, non-irritant, non-hemolytic).
8. The sample size for the training set:
There is no mention of a "training set." This concept is relevant to machine learning or AI algorithms. The Headway 27 Microcatheter is a physical medical device, and its development and testing involve traditional engineering and biological validation, not machine learning model training.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
This is not applicable as there is no training set for this device.
Ask a specific question about this device
(134 days)
HEADWAY 27 MICROCATHETER
The Headway 27 Microcatheter is intended for general intravascular use, including the peripheral, coronary and neurovasculature for the infusion of diagnostic agents, such as contrast media, and therapeutic agents, such as occlusion coils.
The Headway 27 Microcatheter is a single lumen catheter designed to be introduced over a steerable guidewire to access small, tortuous vasculature. The semi-rigid proximal section transitions to a flexible distal tip to facilitate advancement through vessels. Dual radiopaque markers at the distal end facilitate fluoroscopic visualization. The outer surface of the Microcatheter is coated with a hydrophilic polymer to increase lubricity. A luer fitting on the Microcatheter hub is used for the attachment of accessories.
Section 1:
Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
Test | Acceptance Criteria (Implied by "Pass") | Reported Device Performance |
---|---|---|
Surface and physical attributes | Device meets established specifications for surface finish and physical characteristics. | Pass |
Distal tensile strength | Device can withstand a specified tensile force at its distal end without failure. | Pass |
Hub tensile strength | Device can withstand a specified tensile force at its hub without failure. | Pass |
Leakage (liquid and air) | Device exhibits no leakage of liquids or air under specified pressure conditions. | Pass |
Static and dynamic burst pressure | Device can withstand specified static and dynamic burst pressures without failure. | Pass |
Simulated use | Device performs as intended and remains functional during simulated use conditions. | Pass |
Compatibility with devices | Device is compatible with other specified medical devices (e.g., guidewires, infusion pumps). | Pass |
Flow rate | Device maintains a specified flow rate for diagnostic and therapeutic agents. | Pass |
Kink resistance | Device resists kinking under specified bending conditions. | Pass |
Catheter flexural fatigue | Device maintains structural integrity and function after a specified number of flex cycles. | Pass |
Torque test | Device exhibits appropriate torquability for navigation within vasculature. | Pass |
DMSO compatibility | Device material is compatible with Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) without degradation. | Pass |
Cytotoxicity (MEM elution assay, Agarose overlay) | Device extracts do not cause toxic effects on cells. | Pass |
Sensitization/Irritation (Guinea pig maximization sensitization, Intracutaneous reactivity) | Device materials do not cause skin sensitization or irritation. | Pass |
Hemocompatibility (Hemolysis, Prothrombin time assay, Complement activation C3a and SC5b-9, 4 hour thromboresistance in dogs) | Device exhibits acceptable blood compatibility (low hemolysis, no significant impact on coagulation, minimal complement activation, no significant thrombosis). | Pass |
Systemic Toxicity (Systemic toxicity, Rabbit pyrogen test) | Device extracts do not cause systemic toxic effects or pyrogenic reactions. | Pass |
Note on Acceptance Criteria: The provided document states "Pass" for each test, implying that the device met the pre-defined acceptance criteria for that specific test. The specific numerical or qualitative thresholds for each criterion are not explicitly stated in this summary.
Section 2:
- Sample size used for the test set: Not specified. The document summarizes the results of various bench and biocompatibility tests, but does not provide details on the number of units tested for each criterion.
- Data provenance: Not specified. This document pertains to pre-market notification (510(k)) for a medical device and describes laboratory and in-vitro testing. There is no indication of clinical trial data or data from human subjects in this summary. Therefore, the concepts of "country of origin" and "retrospective or prospective" do not directly apply to the reported tests.
Section 3:
- Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set: Not applicable. The "ground truth" concept is typically associated with clinical studies or diagnostic artificial intelligence, where expert consensus or pathological findings define the true state. The described tests are primarily engineering and biological performance evaluations. These tests rely on established scientific methods and validated measurement techniques rather than expert interpretation of complex clinical cases.
- Qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. (See above explanation).
Section 4:
- Adjudication method: Not applicable. The tests described are objective, quantitative or qualitative industrial and laboratory tests. They do not involve interpretation of ambiguous data requiring adjudication for ground truth establishment.
Section 5:
- If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for evaluating the performance of diagnostic devices or AI algorithms in clinical settings, often in comparison to human readers. The provided document details the pre-market submission for a physical medical device (microcatheter) and focuses on bench testing and biocompatibility, not diagnostic performance or AI effectiveness.
- Effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance: Not applicable. (See above explanation).
Section 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 document describes the performance of a physical medical device, not an algorithm.
Section 7:
- The type of ground truth used: Not applicable in the traditional sense of clinical diagnostic ground truth (e.g., pathology, outcomes data, expert consensus). For the bench and biocompatibility tests, the "ground truth" or reference standard is derived from:
- Validated test methods and specifications: Standards like ISO 10993 for biocompatibility provide the framework for evaluating the device's interaction with biological systems.
- Engineering specifications and design parameters: For bench tests, the device's design requirements define what constitutes a "pass" result (e.g., specific tensile strength thresholds, flow rates, burst pressures).
- Chemical and material analysis: Compatibility tests (like DMSO compatibility) rely on known material properties and reactions.
Section 8:
- The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This document describes a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm that would require a training set.
Section 9:
- How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. (See above explanation).
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1