Search Results

The Micro Catheter is intended for the delivery of interventional devices or contrast media into the vasculature of the peripheral and neuro anatomy.

The Micro Catheter is a sterile, single-use, single lumen, variable stiffness, composite catheter. The Micro Catheter is available in three inner diameters (0.017″, 0.021″ and 0.027″), and two working lengths (150cm and 155cm). All models are designed with a straight tip, and are steam shapeable by the user. Single or dual radiopaque markers at the distal end facilitate fluoroscopic visualization. The outer surface of the catheter is coated with a hydrophilic coating to increase lubricity. The proximal end of Micro Catheter incorporates a standard luer adapter to facilitate the attachment of accessories. The catheter body has a semi-rigid proximal end which transitions into the flexible distal end to facilitate the advancement of the catheter in the tortuous vasculature. The Micro Catheter is compatible with ≤ 0.014″ guidewires and 5F or larger guide catheters.

The provided 510(k) clearance letter pertains to a Micro Catheter and describes its performance and testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This document does not discuss an AI/ML powered device, nor does it present data from a study involving human readers or the establishment of ground truth for AI model training or testing. Therefore, I cannot address most of your specific questions related to AI device evaluation.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and performance data for the Micro Catheter based on the provided text.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Micro Catheter

The document describes the testing performed on the Micro Catheter to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. The "acceptance criteria" are implied by the "Results" column in the tables, indicating whether the device met the required performance standards for each test.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The FDA 510(k) summary for a medical device like a micro catheter focuses on engineering and biocompatibility performance rather than AI-specific metrics. The "acceptance criteria" are implicitly met if the "Results" indicate compliance, comparability to a predicate, or "met the acceptance criteria."

Based on the provided text, the following questions cannot be answered as they are relevant to AI/ML or image analysis devices, not the physical Micro Catheter:

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. Performance is based on physical bench and biocompatibility testing, not a "test set" of data for an AI model.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. There is no "ground truth" establishment in the context of an AI model. Testing involves objective measurements and compliance with standards.
4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
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: Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI assistance tool.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable. The "ground truth" in this context is compliance with engineering standards and physiological responses (e.g., non-toxic, non-pyrogenic).
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. There is no AI model or "training set."
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

This 510(k) clearance is for a conventional Class II medical device, and therefore the evaluation and acceptance criteria are based on established engineering, material science, and biological safety standards, not AI/ML performance metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Micro Catheter and Guidewire System is intended for the infusion of contrast media into the peripheral vessels. The Micro Catheter and Guidewire system is also infusion in intra-arterial therapy and the infusion of embolic materials for hemostasis. The system should not be used in cerebral vessels.

Micro Catheter and Guidewire System consists of a catheter, a guidewire, and accessories. The accessories include a flushing device, a shaping mandrel, an insertion tool, a torque device and a peel-able tube.

The catheter is consist of a hub, a stress relief tube and a catheter shaft. The catheter shaft has three layers. The inner layer is a PTFE tube, the middle layer is consist of stainless steel wire reinforce and platinum-iridium alloy radiopaque distal marker. And the outer layer is polyamide. There is also a hydrophilic coating on the catheter surface.

The guidewire is consist of a nitinol core, a polymer jacket with PVP hydrophilic coating over its entire surface, and a spring coil at distal. It has a white marker at the proximal to indicate the length inserted into human body and its relative position with the catheter.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the "Micro Catheter and Guidewire System" and predominantly focuses on the regulatory submission process, device description, and a comparison to a predicate device. It briefly mentions performance testing but does not provide the detailed acceptance criteria or the specific results required to fill out a table of acceptance criteria vs. reported device performance.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request to create a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance or answer most of the questions about the study design, sample sizes, expert involvement, or ground truth establishment.

The document states that "Nonclinical tests demonstrate that the Micro Catheter and Guidewire System is substantially equivalent to the predicate device which is currently marketed for the same intended use." This indicates that the study was primarily a nonclinical (bench) testing and biocompatibility evaluation to demonstrate substantial equivalence, rather than a clinical study evaluating human-in-the-loop performance or diagnostic accuracy.

Here's what can be inferred or stated as "not provided" based on the text:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

• Not provided in the document. The document lists types of tests (e.g., "Peak tensile force of catheter," "Coating test of guidewire," "Burst pressure under static conditions") under "Bench Testing", but it does not specify the quantitative acceptance criteria for these tests nor the numerical results achieved by the device.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Sample size: Not provided. The document states that "Biocompatibility evaluation... was conducted in accordance with current standards" and lists various bench tests, but the number of units/samples tested for each is not specified.
• Data provenance: The tests are "Nonclinical tests," likely performed at Suzhou Hengrui Hongyuan Medical Co., Ltd. or a contracted lab in China, given the submitter's location. There is no mention of human subject data, so "retrospective or prospective" is not applicable in the typical sense of clinical studies.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a micro catheter and guidewire system, not a diagnostic AI device requiring expert interpretation for ground truth. The "ground truth" for this type of device would be established engineering specifications and material properties, against which the device's performance is measured in bench tests.

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

• Not applicable. This pertains to studies where human reviewers assess data, often clinical images. For bench testing of a micro catheter and guidewire, "adjudication" methods are not relevant. Test results are typically objective measurements.

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. This is a medical device, not an AI/CADe/CADx system for image interpretation. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance was not performed.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an algorithm-based device. Its performance is intrinsic to its physical properties and design.

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

• For biocompatibility: Adherence to ISO standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series).
• For bench testing: Engineering specifications, industry standards, and predicate device performance. These would serve as the "ground truth" or acceptance criteria for mechanical and physical properties.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable. (See point 8).

Ask a specific question about this device

The Micro Catheter is intended for selective delivery of therapeutic devices and infusion of contrast media into the peripheral and neuro vasculature.

The proposed device Micro Catheter is a single-lumen catheter designed to be introduced over a steerable guidewire into the peripheral and neuro vasculature. The proximal end of the catheter incorporates standard Luer adapter to facilitate the attachment of accessories. The outer surface of the catheter has a lubricious coating at the distal end of the Micro Catheter has a radiopaque marker at the distal end to facilitate fluoroscopic visualization. The device is intended for single use and is provided sterile.

The provided document is a 510(k) Pre-market Notification for a medical device called "Micro Catheter". It details non-clinical performance and biocompatibility testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

However, the document does not contain any information about a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria related to an AI/Machine Learning model, nor does it discuss human reader performance, AI assistance, or the establishment of ground truth for such models. The document focuses on the physical and biological performance of a catheter device through standard engineering and biocompatibility tests.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for the following sections as the information is not present in the provided text:

• A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: The document provides a table of test methods and results for non-clinical performance and biocompatibility, but these are for the physical device, not an AI model.
• Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable as no AI/ML model testing is described.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable.
• Adjudication method: Not applicable.
• If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done: 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: Not applicable.
• The sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

The document pertains to the regulatory clearance of a physical medical device (a micro catheter) and its performance is evaluated through standard engineering and biological compatibility tests, not through the evaluation of an AI or machine learning algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device