Search Results

Refractory left ventricular power failure. Cardiogenic shock unstable refractory angina. Mechanical complication due to acute myocardial infraction; i.e., ventricular septal defect, mitral regurgitation or papillary muscle rupture. Impending infrfaction, ischemia related intractable ventricular arrhythmias. Septic shock. Support for failed angioplasty and valvuloplasty. Cardiac support for high risk general surgical patients.

The addition of a new peel-away hemostasis device to four existing Arrow IABs makes them now "universal" IABs, in that they can be used as is for sheathless insertion techniques, or can be used with current standard sheaths if the sheathless feature is not desired, by peeling it away and discarding it.

This appears to be a 510(k) summary for a medical device submitted to the FDA, specifically concerning an "Arrow Intra-Aortic Balloon Catheter with Peel-Away Hemostasis Device." The document states that the new "Universal" IABs are substantially equivalent to existing Arrow IAB products.

However, the provided text does not contain any specific acceptance criteria or details of a study with numerical performance data that would typically be presented in a table. It states that "The nonclinical performance test results included in the submission show comparable performance to the predicate sheathless devices," but it does not elaborate on what those tests were, what the criteria were, or what the specific results were.

Therefore, I cannot directly extract the requested information about acceptance criteria, device performance, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or multi-reader studies from the provided text.

Here is a breakdown of what can be inferred from the provided text, and where the requested information is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• Missing. The document only states "comparable performance to the predicate sheathless devices." It does not provide specific performance metrics or acceptance criteria.

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

• Missing. There is no mention of a "test set" in the context of performance evaluation, nor any sample size for such a test. Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is also not available.

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

• Missing. This document does not describe a study involving human readers or expert consensus for establishing ground truth on a test set. This type of information is typically found in studies involving software or imaging devices.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Missing. As no test set or human review is described, there is no adjudication method mentioned.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and Effect Size

• Missing. The document describes a medical device (catheter) and its substantial equivalence, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool that would typically undergo an MRMC study. Therefore, no information on AI assistance effect size is available.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Was Done

• Missing. This device is a physical medical instrument, not an algorithm. Standalone performance typically refers to the performance of an AI algorithm without human intervention, which is not applicable here.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• Missing. The nature of the device (catheter) suggests that "ground truth" might refer to physical/mechanical properties conforming to design specifications or clinical outcomes in animal or human trials. However, the document only broadly refers to "nonclinical performance test results" without specifying how performance was measured or validated against a "ground truth."

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Missing. This concept is primarily relevant for machine learning algorithms. For a physical device, "training set" is not a standard term, though design iterations and validation testing might involve prototypes and materials. The document provides no such numerical detail.

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

• Missing. (See point 8).

Summary of what the document does provide:

• Device: Arrow Intra-Aortic Balloon Catheter with Peel-Away Hemostasis Device.
• Purpose: The addition of a new peel-away hemostasis device to existing Arrow IABs to make them "universal," usable with or without sheaths.
• Claimed Equivalence: Substantially equivalent to eight current Arrow IAB products.
• Indications for Use: Refractory left ventricular power failure, cardiogenic shock, unstable refractory angina, mechanical complications of acute myocardial infarction, impending infarction, ischemia-related intractable ventricular arrhythmias, septic shock, support for failed angioplasty and valvuloplasty, cardiac support for high-risk general surgical patients.
• Performance Statement: "The nonclinical performance test results included in the submission show comparable performance to the predicate sheathless devices." This is a qualitative statement, not a quantitative one.
• Regulatory Class: Class III.
• 510(k) Number: K970689.

To obtain the detailed information requested, one would need to review the full 510(k) submission to the FDA, which would contain the actual test reports, methodologies, and specific data for the "nonclinical performance tests." The provided snippets are a high-level summary and the FDA's clearance letter.

Ask a specific question about this device