Search Results

The Reprocessed Agilis NxT Introducer is indicated when introducing various cardiovascular catheters into the heart including the left side of the heart through the interatrial septum.

The reprocessed Agilis NxT steerable introducer consists of a steerable sheath, dilator, and quidewire which is designed to provide flexible catheter positioning in the cardiac anatomy. The steerable introducer is fitted with a hemostasis valve to minimize blood loss during catheter introduction and/or exchange. A sideport with three-way stopcock is provided for air or blood aspiration, fluid infusion, blood sampling and pressure monitoring. The handle is equipped with a rotating collar to deflect the tip clockwise ≥ 180° and counterclockwise ≥ 90°. The steerable introducer features distal vent holes to facilitate aspiration and minimize cavitation and a radiopaque tip marker to improve fluoroscopic visualization.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification for a Reprocessed Agilis NxT Steerable Introducer. This document is for a medical device that facilitates the introduction of catheters into the heart. It is not an AI/ML medical device, and therefore the provided document does not contain information on acceptance criteria for AI models, nor studies that prove an AI device meets acceptance criteria.

The information requested in the prompt (acceptance criteria for device performance, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert qualifications, ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, etc.) is typically found in submissions for AI/ML-driven medical devices, especially those related to diagnostic imaging or analysis.

Since this document pertains to a reprocessed physical medical device (a catheter introducer), the "studies" mentioned are bench and laboratory testing to prove the device's physical and mechanical performance, biocompatibility, cleaning validation, sterilization validation, and packaging validation. These are standard tests for physical medical devices, not for AI model performance.

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information from the provided text because it describes a different type of medical device assessment.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Reprocessed Agilis NxT Steerable Introducing various cardiovascular cardiovascular catheters into the heart including the left side of the heart through the interatrial septum.

The reprocessed Agilis NxT steerable introducer consists of a steerable sheath, dilator, and guidewire which is designed to provide flexible catheter positioning in the cardiac anatomy. The steerable introducer is fitted with a hemostasis valve to minimize blood loss during catheter introduction and/or exchange. A sideport with three-way stopcock is provided for air or blood aspiration, fluid infusion, blood sampling and pressure monitoring. The handle is equipped with a rotating collar to deflect the tip clockwise ≥ 180° and counterclockwise ≥ 90°. The steerable introducer features distal vent holes to facilitate aspiration and minimize cavitation and a radiopaque tip marker to improve fluoroscopic visualization.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for a reprocessed medical device, specifically the Reprocessed Agilis NxT Steerable Introducer. The focus of the acceptance criteria and study is on demonstrating that the reprocessed device is substantially equivalent to the predicate (original) device, meaning it is as safe and effective.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

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

The document describes several types of testing performed to demonstrate that the reprocessed device is equivalent to the original, but it does not provide a table with specific quantitative acceptance criteria or reported numerical performance data for the reprocessed device. Instead, it lists the categories of tests conducted.

The general acceptance criterion is that the reprocessed device must perform equivalently to the predicate and meet established safety and effectiveness standards for reprocessed medical devices.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

The document does not specify the sample sizes used for any of the described tests. It also does not mention the country of origin of the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective. The studies described are bench and laboratory tests, not clinical studies involving patients.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

This type of information is not applicable to this submission. The studies described are physical, mechanical, and sterilization validations, which rely on established engineering and scientific testing methodologies and standards rather than expert clinical interpretation for establishing ground truth. There is no mention of human experts evaluating the "ground truth" in the context of diagnostic interpretation.

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

This detail is not applicable to the type of bench and laboratory testing described. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are typically used in clinical studies for diagnostic accuracy, where multiple readers evaluate cases and discrepancies are resolved.

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

There was no Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study done. This submission is for a reprocessed physical medical device (a steerable introducer), not an AI/imaging diagnostic device. Therefore, questions about human readers or AI assistance are not relevant.

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

This question is not applicable. The device is a physical medical instrument, not an algorithm, so the concept of "standalone algorithm performance" does not apply.

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

For the types of tests performed:

• Biocompatibility, Cleaning, Sterilization: The ground truth is established through adherence to recognized standards and validated scientific methods for assessing these parameters (e.g., ISO standards for biocompatibility, validated cleaning protocols, sterilization cycle validation to achieve sterility assurance levels).
• Physical and Mechanical Testing: The ground truth is established by comparing the reprocessed device's performance against the original equipment manufacturer's specifications for the predicate device, or relevant industry standards. This includes objective measurements of dimensions, tensile strength, deflection, leak integrity, and radiopacity.
• Simulated Use: The ground truth is success in performing the intended function without failure or compromise in a simulated environment, based on pre-defined performance metrics.

8. The sample size for the training set

This question is not applicable. The device is a physical medical instrument, not a machine learning or AI model. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of algorithm development.

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

This question is not applicable as there is no training set for this type of device submission.

Ask a specific question about this device