Search Results

The Reprocessed Sealed Electrophysiology Diagnostic Catheters, are intended for temporary use during electrophysiology studies for intracardiac sensing, recording, stimulation and temporary pacing during the evaluation of cardiac arrhythmias; and for electrophysiologic mapping of cardiac structures during these evaluations.

The device consists of a reprocessed catheter that has a high-torque shaft with a handle at the proximal end, and may or may not be steerable. These catheters have an outer diameter of 4F to 7F, a length ranging from 65 to 120 cm, with 2-20 platinum, radiopaque electrodes along the tip shaft and a variety of inter-electrode spacings and curve styles at the tip. The tip generally is deflectable. Specific cables, as recommended by the original manufacturer, connect to the handle and interface between the catheter and an external stimulator and/or an electrophysiologic recorder. It should be noted that this submission pertains to the catheter only. It does not include any other components in a system such as, connector cables, external stimulators, or electrophysiologic recorders.

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter from the FDA for a reprocessed medical device, specifically "Reprocessed Sealed Electrophysiology Diagnostic Catheters." It indicates that supplemental validation data was reviewed and the devices were found substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.

However, the document does not contain details about specific acceptance criteria or the study that proves the device meets those criteria, in the format usually provided for AI/algorithm performance claims. The document is a regulatory approval for reprocessing, focusing on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing devices through functional and safety testing related to the reprocessing procedure (cleaning, sterilization, packaging) and ensuring that the reprocessed devices maintain appropriate functional characteristics.

Therefore, I cannot directly answer your detailed questions about acceptance criteria for AI algorithms, sample sizes for test sets, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone performance, as this information is not present in the provided text. The document is concerned with the safety and effectiveness of a reprocessing procedure for existing hardware, not with the performance metrics of a new diagnostic algorithm.

Here's what I can extract from the document relevant to the reprocessing validation, which is the closest equivalent to a "study" described herein:

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

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

• The document states "Functional and Representative samples of reprocessed sealed electrophysiology diagnostic catheters underwent design testing". It does not specify the exact number of samples used for this testing.
• The data provenance is implied to be from SterilMed, Inc.'s internal validation processes and manufacturing, likely conducted in the USA (Minneapolis, MN). The text does not specify if the testing was retrospective or prospective, but validation generally involves prospective testing of reprocessed samples.

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

• This information is not provided in the document. The "ground truth" here would relate to the functional integrity and safety of the reprocessed catheters, which would be assessed through standard engineering and microbiological testing, not typically by clinical experts establishing a ground truth in the same way for diagnostic AI.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not applicable/Not mentioned. The validation involves testing against defined specifications, not expert adjudication in the context of diagnostic interpretation.

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 a study of an AI or diagnostic algorithm, but rather a validation of a reprocessing method for a physical medical device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• The "ground truth" in this context refers to the defined specifications and performance characteristics of the original new device, which the reprocessed device must meet. This would be established through industry standards, regulatory requirements, and the original manufacturer's specifications.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm that requires a training set. The "training" here would refer to the development and optimization of the reprocessing procedures.

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

• Not applicable. See #8.

In summary, the provided text concerns the regulatory clearance of reprocessed single-use medical devices based on physical and functional equivalence and safety after reprocessing, not the performance of a diagnostic AI algorithm. Therefore, many of your questions are not directly addressable by this specific document.

Ask a specific question about this device