Search Results

The InnerDyne, Inc., REVAS product is intended to provide percutaneous access to the vasculature. The REVAS product is indicated for the following use: Percutaneous vascular access.

The REVAS product consists of an expandable sleeve assembly. The tubular member of the expandable is configured so as to be radially compressed to reduce the outside diameter of the device prior to insertion. Upon use, the expandable sleeve assembly is inserted through the skin and surrounding tissue into the selected vessel over a previously placed guidewire according to the techniques of Seldinger. (An alternative placement method would have the needle placed within the lumen of the expandable sleeve, and the combined needle and sleeve inserted into the target vessel. The guidewire would be placed and the needle removed.) The dilator/sheath assembly, which consists of a tapered dilator and sheath with integral hemostasis valve, is inserted over the guidewire through the lumen of the expandable sleeve which expands radially to accommodate the dilator/sheath. This process in turn, radially expands the surrounding tissue. Following dilation the dilator is removed, leaving the expandable sleeve and sheath with integral hemostasis valve in place to provide a sealed port for passage of instruments.

This system configuration allows the user to initially place a small diameter sheath for passage of small instruments. The sheath can then be removed from the lumion the sleeve while leaving the sleeve inserted in the vessel. A larger dirmeter dilator/sheath can then be inserted through the sleeve to create a larger port for passage of the larger instruments.

The device is assembled from medical grade materials under GMP and ISO conditions. Components are molded and machined by qualified suppliers. The components are assembled and secured by adhesives, welds, and mechanical interlocks.

The provided text describes a medical device, the InnerDyne, Inc., Radially Expanding Vascular Access System (REVAS™), and its 510(k) submission for market clearance. However, it does not contain information regarding acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets those criteria in the format requested.

Here's why and what information is missing:

• No Acceptance Criteria Table or Reported Performance: The document is a 510(k) summary and FDA clearance letter, which focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device. It doesn't present specific acceptance criteria (e.g., success rates, complication rates, force required, etc.) or a quantitative performance report against such criteria.
• No Study Details: The text states, "The subject InnerDyne, Inc., REVAS product is as safe and effective as currently marketed devices for the stated indications," and "The FDA finding of substantial equivalence... permits your device to proceed to the market." This indicates that the primary method for demonstrating safety and effectiveness was through comparison to existing, legally marketed devices (predicates), not through a new, independent clinical trial or bench study with specific performance endpoints.
• Lack of detailed ground truth, sample sizes, expert qualifications, adjudication, or MRMC studies: These elements are typically part of a comprehensive clinical or performance study report, which is not present in this 510(k) summary. The 510(k) pathway often relies on demonstrating similarity to established devices rather than new performance benchmarks.

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table or answer the specific questions based on the provided text. The document's purpose is to establish substantial equivalence, not to report on a detailed performance study with acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

The InnerDyne, Inc., Radially Expanding Vascular Access System (Heparin Coated) is intended to provide percutaneous access to the vasculature. The Radially Expanding Vascular Access System (Heparin Coated) is indicated for the following usages: Percutaneous vascular access.

The Radially Expanding Vascular Access System (Heparin Coated) consists of an expandable sleeve assembly. The tubular member of the expandable is configured so as to be radially compressed to reduce the outside diameter of the device prior to insertion. Upon use, the expandable sleeve assembly is inserted through the skin and surrounding tissue into the selected ver a previously placed guidewire according to the techniques of Seldinger. (An alternative placement method would have the needle placed within the lumen of the expandable sleeve, and the combined needle and sleeve inserted into the target vessel. The guidewire would be placed and the needle removed.) The dilator/sheath assembly, which consists of a tapered dilator and sheath with integral hemostasis valve, is inserted over the guidewire through the lumen of the expandable sleeve which expands radially to accommodate the dilator/sheath. This process in turn, radially expands the surrounding tissue. Following dilation the dilator is removed, leaving the expandable sleeve and sheath with integral hemostasis valve in place to provide a sealed port for passage of instruments. This system configuration allows the user to initially place a small diameter sheath for passage of small instruments. The sheath can then be removed from the sleeve while leaving the sleeve inserted in the vessel. A larger diameter dilator/sheath can then be inserted through the sleeve to create a larger port for passage of the larger instruments. The device is assembled from medical grade materials under GMP and ISO conditions. Components are molded and machined by qualified suppliers. The components are assembled and secured by adhesives, welds, and mechanical interlocks.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the InnerDyne Radially Expanding Vascular Access System (Heparin Coated). The FDA's review of 510(k) submissions primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than requiring extensive clinical trials or performance studies with specific acceptance criteria that would typically be associated with novel, high-risk devices.

Therefore, many of the typical elements requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria and detailed study information are not present or not applicable in this type of submission. The key finding is "substantial equivalence" based on design, function, materials, and indications for use being similar to a predicate device, with an added heparin coating and an expanded sheath diameter range noted as the primary differences.

Here's an attempt to address your points based on the provided text, highlighting where information is absent or not relevant to a 510(k) submission:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This information is not provided in the 510(k) summary. For a 510(k) submission, the "acceptance criteria" are generally met by demonstrating that the device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device in terms of safety and effectiveness, based on similar technological characteristics and intended use. Performance data in the context of specific quantitative measures with defined thresholds is typically not required for 510(k) clearance unless there are new technological features posing different risks.

The document states: "From the foregoing, we conclude that the Radially Expanding Vascular Access System (Heparin Coated) device is as safe and effective as currently marketed devices for the stated indications." This is the broad "performance" claim, achieved by comparison to the predicate.

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

This information is not provided. The submission relies on a comparison to a predicate device, not on new clinical performance data from a specific test set.

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

This information is not applicable/provided. No "test set" in the sense of patient data requiring expert ground truth assessment is described as part of this 510(k) submission.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable/provided.

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 information is not applicable. This device is a physical medical device (vascular access system), not an AI algorithm or imaging device that would typically involve human readers or MRMC studies.

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

This information is not applicable.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

This information is not applicable/provided. The basis for clearance is substantial equivalence to an existing legally marketed device (the predicate). The "truth" in this context is that the new device is as safe and effective as the predicate.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable/provided. There is no mention of a "training set" as this is not an AI or machine learning device.

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

This information is not applicable/provided.

Ask a specific question about this device

The InnerDyne, Inc., Radially Expanding Vascular Access System is intended to provide percutaneous access to the vasculature. The Radially Expanding Vascular Access System is indicated for the following usages: Percutaneous vascular access.

The Radially Expanding Vascular Access System consists of an expandable sleeve assembly: The tubular member of the expandable is configured so as to be radially compressed to reduce the outside diameter of the device prior to insertion. Upon use, the expandable sleeve assembly is inserted through the skin and surrounding tissue into the selected vessel over a previously placed guidewire. (An alternative placement method would have the needle placed within the lumen of the expandable sleeve, and the combined needle and sleeve inserted into the target vessel. The guidewire would be placed and the needle removed.) The dilator/sheath assembly, which consists of a tapered dilator and sheath with integral hemostasis valve, is inserted over the guidewire through the lumen of the expandable sleve which expands radially to accommodate the dilator/sheath. This process in turn, radially expands the surrounding tissue. Following dilator is removed, leaving the expandable sleeve and sheath with integral hemostasis valve in place to provide a sealed port for passage of instruments.

This system configuration allows the user to initially place a small diameter sheath for passage of small instruments. The sheath can then be removed from the lumen of the sleeve while leaving the sleve inserted in the vessel. A larger diameter dilator/sheath can then be inserted through the sleeve to create a larger port for passage of the larger instruments.

The device is assembled from medical grade materials under GMP and ISO conditions. Components are molded and machined by qualified suppliers. The components are assembled and secured by adhesives, welds, and mechanical interlocks.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device, the InnerDyne Radially Expanding Vascular Access System, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not include detailed information regarding specific acceptance criteria, performance studies with reported metrics, sample sizes, expert involvement, or any of the other specific study design elements requested in the prompt.

Therefore, most of the requested information cannot be extracted from the provided text.

Here is what can be inferred or stated based on the document:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated. The device is determined to be "substantially equivalent" to a predicate device (K931489). This implies that its performance is expected to be comparable to the predicate device, but specific quantitative criteria are not listed.
• Reported Device Performance: Not provided in quantitative terms. The document concludes that the device is "as safe and effective as currently marketed devices for the stated indications." This is a qualitative statement of equivalence, not a report of specific performance metrics.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• No information on test set sample size or data provenance is provided.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• Not applicable. This type of study (e.g., clinical trial, diagnostic accuracy study) is not described. The submission is based on substantial equivalence.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• Not applicable. No test set or ground truth establishment process is described.

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 MRMC or AI-related study is mentioned. This is a 1997 submission for a mechanical medical device, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an algorithm or AI device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

• Not applicable. Ground truth for a clinical study is not described. The "ground truth" for this regulatory submission is the established safety and effectiveness of the predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning device, so there is no "training set."

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

• Not applicable.

Summary of Substantial Equivalence Basis:

The core of the submission (K972684) relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device: the InnerDyne, Inc., Radially Expanding Dilating Introducer device (K931489).

The key arguments for substantial equivalence are:

• Similarities in Design Principles: "basic design principles... are similar, and remain essentially unchanged."
• Similarities in Configuration, Composition, Materials: "product configuration, composition, and utilized materials are similar."
• Similar Principles of Operation: "each of these products employs a similar insertion technique, indications for use, contraindications for use, warnings and precautions."
• Minor Differences: The subject device differs only in "changes to the materials used in the construction of the expanding sleeve portion and the presentation style of the product. Alternative locations and methods of sterilization are being included."
• Validation of New Materials/Sterilization: The new material and alternative sterilization methods are stated to be "similar to those used in the InnerDyne Step™ family of products" which likely have their own history of FDA clearance (K943253, K940232, K950632, and K950658). This implies these components/processes have been previously deemed safe and effective in similar contexts.

In essence, the "study" proving the device meets acceptance criteria is the argument that the new device is fundamentally the same as a device already on the market and cleared by the FDA, with only minor changes that do not alter its safety or effectiveness profile. This is typical for a 510(k) submission where a device is not entirely novel but rather a modification or evolution of an existing product.

Ask a specific question about this device