LogoFDA 510(k) Search
Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K150802
    Device Name
    Heavy Double Flexible Tipped Wire Guide
    Manufacturer
    COOK INCORPORATED
    Date Cleared
    2015-05-28

    (63 days)

    Product Code
    DQX
    Regulation Number
    870.1330
    Type
    Traditional
    Panel
    Cardiovascular
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    K770977
    Predicate For
    K171912
    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The Heavy Double Flexible Tipped Wire Guide is intended to facilitate placement of devices used during diagnostic and interventional procedures.

    Device Description

    The Heavy Double Flexible Tipped Wire Guide is constructed of stainless steel coils surrounding a stainless steel mandril. It is a 0.032 inch diameter, 60 cm long wire guide with two flexible tips and four sets of centimeter markings etched at 10 cm intervals along the wire shaft. The device is supplied sterile, packaged within a Tyvek peel pouch.

    AI/ML Overview

    This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "Heavy Double Flexible Tipped Wire Guide." It does not describe an AI/ML powered device, therefore the requested information for acceptance criteria and study proving the device meets the criteria is not applicable in the context of AI/ML.

    The document discusses various performance tests conducted for the wire guide and states that predetermined acceptance criteria for each test were met. However, it does not provide the specific numerical acceptance criteria or detailed results in a table format as requested for an AI/ML device.

    Here's a breakdown of what is available in the document, framed as close as possible to the request, but acknowledging the device type:

    Device Type: Medical device (Catheter Guide Wire), not an AI/ML powered device.

    1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance:

    Test NameAcceptance Criterion (General Statement)Reported Device Performance
    Fracture TestingNo signs of fracture after manipulation (excluding region of fixation and first turn).Met the predetermined acceptance criterion.
    Tensile TestingNo sign of loosening of any unions after appropriate force per ISO 11070:1999.Met the predetermined acceptance criterion.
    Corrosion ResistanceNo signs of corrosion affecting functional performance or biocompatibility.Met the predetermined acceptance criterion.
    Flex TestingNo signs of defects or damage after repeated flexing.Met the predetermined acceptance criterion.
    Acute Performance EvaluationRated as acceptable for normal clinical practice for performance parameters evaluated.Met the predetermined acceptance criterion.
    Bubble Leak (Packaging)No pinholes or imperfect seals (no bubbles from pressurized air leaking).Met the predetermined acceptance criterion.
    Seal Strength (Packaging)Mean seal force exceeds 0.50 lbf.Met the predetermined acceptance criterion.
    Biocompatibility TestingDeemed acceptable per ISO 10993-1:2009 (cytotoxicity, sensitization, irritation/intracutaneous reactivity, systemic toxicity, hemocompatibility).Deemed acceptable; met the predetermined acceptance criterion.

    Regarding the requested details that are specific to AI/ML studies, none of these are applicable to this document:

    • Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable to a physical device performance study. The "test set" would be the physical samples of the wire guide subjected to the tests.
    • Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for a physical device's mechanical and material properties is established through standardized testing procedures and measurements, not expert consensus on interpretations.
    • Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
    • 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.
    • If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
    • The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): For a physical device, ground truth is based on objective measurements and adherence to specified physical and material properties.
    • The sample size for the training set: Not applicable (no "training set" for physical device testing).
    • How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

    In conclusion, this document details the performance testing of a conventional medical device, not an AI/ML product. Therefore, many of the specific questions related to AI/ML acceptance criteria and studies are not relevant. The document states that the device successfully met its predetermined acceptance criteria for various physical and mechanical tests.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1