Search Results

The Merit Microcatheter is intended for general intravascular use, including peripheral and coronary vasculature. Once the subselective region has been accessed, the microcatheter can be used for the controlled and selective infusion of diagnostic, embolic or therapeutic materials into vessels. The catheter should not be used in the cerebral vessels.

The Merit Microcatheter is available in 2.8/2.8 Fr and 2.8/2.4 Fr sizes with lengths of 110, 130 and 150 cm. The outer surface of the distal segment of the catheter shaft is coated with a hydrophilic coating designed to facilitate the introduction of the catheter into the vessels. The Microcatheter has a radiopaque marker at the distal tip to facilitate fluoroscopic visualization.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the "Merit Microcatheter". This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through performance testing. It does not describe a study involving human readers, AI assistance, or complex ground truth establishment typical of diagnostic AI device evaluations.

Here's an analysis of the provided information in relation to your request:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for the Merit Microcatheter are based on a battery of physical and biological tests designed to ensure the safety and efficacy of the device as an intravascular catheter. The document states that the device "meet the acceptance criteria that were determined to be applicable to the safety and efficacy of the device," but does not provide a table with specific numerical acceptance criteria or reported device performance values. Instead, it lists the standards to which the tests were performed.

Study Details

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • The document does not specify sample sizes for any of the performance tests.
   • The provenance of the data is also not mentioned. These are likely in-house laboratory tests conducted by the manufacturer.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • This question is not applicable as the described study is focused on physical and biological performance of a medical device (catheter), not a diagnostic device requiring expert interpretation for ground truth.

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

   • This question is not applicable as the study involves objective physical and biological tests, not subjective interpretations requiring adjudication.

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:

   • No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for diagnostic devices that either incorporate AI or aim to improve human interpretation. The Merit Microcatheter is a physical instrument.

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

   • No, this refers to an algorithm's performance. The Merit Microcatheter is a physical device, so this is not applicable.

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

   • The "ground truth" for the performance tests would be the specifications and requirements defined by the referenced ISO standards for catheter properties (e.g., burst pressure, tensile strength, sterility, biocompatibility). It is not based on expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in a clinical sense.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • This is not applicable. The device is a physical product, not an AI algorithm that requires a training set.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • This is not applicable as there is no training set for an AI algorithm. The performance of the physical device is evaluated against engineering and biological standards.

Ask a specific question about this device