Search Results

Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Abbott Inquiry Steerable Diagnostic Catheters can be used for electrogram recording and cardiac stimulation during diagnostic electrophysiologic studies. The catheters are commonly placed in the high right atrium, right ventricular apex, and the HIS bundle.

The Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Inquiry Steerable Diagnostic Electrophysiology Catheters are flexible, insulated catheters constructed of thermoplastic elastomer material and noble metal electrodes. The tip of the steerable catheters may be manipulated with the control mechanism located in the handle of the proximal end of the catheter.

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA regarding a reprocessed medical device: the Medline ReNewal Reprocessed Abbott Inquiry Steerable Diagnostic Catheter. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving the safety and effectiveness of a novel device through extensive clinical studies with specific acceptance criteria as you would see for an AI/ML powered device.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes for training/test sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, or ground truth establishment in the context of an AI/ML device.

Instead, the document details physical and functional performance testing to ensure the reprocessed device is equivalent to the original predicate devices. This typically involves:

• Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance: This document does not present a formal table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance in the way one would for an AI/ML algorithm. Instead, it states that "The functional characteristics of the subject device have been evaluated and found to be substantially equivalent to the predicate device based on the following tests." The tests listed are:

  • Visual inspection
  • Dimensional measurement
  • Electrical safety
  • Mechanical characteristics (continuity, isolation, resistance)
  • Corrosion resistance
  • Cleaning validation
  • Biocompatibility
  • Packaging and shelf life validation
  • Sterilization validation
  • Product stability
    The acceptance criterion for these tests is that the reprocessed device performs comparably to the new, original predicate devices.

• Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: The document does not specify exact sample sizes for each of the non-clinical tests listed. It indicates the tests were performed on the reprocessed devices. The "data provenance" is implied to be from Medline ReNewal's internal testing of their reprocessed catheters. This is not medical imaging data from patients.

• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. For reprocessed medical devices, "ground truth" relates to engineering specifications and performance standards established by the original manufacturer and industry standards, rather than expert human interpretation of medical data.

• Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically associated with human interpretation of complex data (like medical images) to establish ground truth, which is not the type of data or evaluation performed for this device.

• 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. This is a physical medical device, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. MRMC studies are for AI/ML devices to assess human reader performance with and without AI assistance.

• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

• The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Ground truth for this device would be based on engineering specifications, material properties, functional performance benchmarks (e.g., electrical resistance within a specified range, mechanical integrity under stress, sterility), and established safety standards. It does not involve medical, pathological, or outcomes data in the way an AI/ML diagnostic would.

• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device, so there is no "training set."

• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. As there is no training set.

In summary, the provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter for a reprocessed physical medical device, not an AI/ML enabled device. Therefore, the questions related to AI/ML model evaluation (training/test sets, ground truth methodology, expert adjudication, MRMC studies) are not relevant to this submission. The "study" proving the device meets acceptance criteria refers to a series of non-clinical, bench-top functional and material property tests to ensure the reprocessed device performs equivalently to its new predicate.

Ask a specific question about this device