Search Results

Performer™ Introducers and Guiding Sheaths are indicated for the percutaneous introduction of therapeutic or diagnostic devices to all heart chambers, including the left atrium via transseptal puncture.

The Performer" Introducer and Guiding Sheath is manufactured using radiopaque fluorinated ethylene propylene (RFEP) tubing with a fluorinated ethylene propylene tungsten tubing (FETT) tip. The tip of the sheath is formed into various curves depending on the device configuration. The proximal end consists of a hemostatic valve with a connecting tube and stopcock. The subject device is available with outside diameters ranging from 4 – 14 French and lengths ranging from 45 – 98 centimeters (smaller sizes sized for pediatric use and larger sizes for adults). The dilator is compatible with wire guides 0.025 – 0.038 inches in diameter. The supplied dilator is designed to extend beyond the tip of the sheath when the dilator is fully inserted through the hemostatic valve of the sheath. The Performer™ Introducer and Guiding Sheath is a sterile device intended for single use only.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Performer™ Introducer and Guiding Sheath, a medical device. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through engineering and performance testing, rather than clinical studies involving human patients or complex AI algorithms.

Therefore, many of the requested categories related to AI performance, human reader studies, and large-scale clinical ground truth establishment are not applicable to this document. The testing described is primarily mechanical and material property verification.

Here's a breakdown of the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• The document does not specify sample sizes for individual tests. It generally states that "tests were performed" or "test articles were evaluated."
• Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not applicable or provided, as these are engineering tests on manufactured components, not clinical data from patients.

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

• Not applicable. Ground truth for these engineering tests is established by adhering to recognized international standards (e.g., ISO, BS EN ISO) and manufacturer specifications, not by expert medical review.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable. This concept applies to clinical studies where multiple reviewers assess data. For engineering tests, the results are objectively measured against established criteria.

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 not an AI-powered device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI-powered device.

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

• For these engineering tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the objective pass/fail criteria outlined in internationally recognized standards (e.g., ISO 10993-1:2009, BS EN ISO 11070:2014, ISO 594-1/2) and the manufacturer's internal specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI-powered device that undergoes a training phase. These are physical device tests.

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

• Not applicable. As noted above, there is no "training set" or "ground truth" in the AI sense for this type of device submission.

Ask a specific question about this device