Search Results

The Reprocessed LASSO NAV eco and Reprocessed LASSO 2515 NAV eco Variable Catheters are indicated for multiple electrode electrophysiological mapping of the heart, i.e. recording or stimulation only. The Reprocessed LASSO NAV eco and Reprocessed LASSO 2515 NAV eco Variable Catheters are designed to obtain electrograms in the atrial regions of the heart.

The Reprocessed LASSO NAV and Reprocessed LASSO 2515 NAV eco Variable Catheters provide location information when used with compatible CARTO 3 EP Navigation Systems. (These catheters are not compatible with CARTO 3 EP Navigation Systems prior to Version 2.3.)

The Reprocessed LASSO 2515 NAV eco Variable Catheter and Reprocessed LASSO NAV eco Catheter have been designed to facilitate electrophysiological mapping of the atria of the heart with the CARTO 3 EP Navigation System and a reference device. Both catheters are deployed in the right or left atrium through an 8F quiding sheath. Both deflectable catheters consists of a 4.5 F (Lasso NAV eco) or 4 F (LASSO NAV eco Variable) circular spine on the distal tip, with platinum/iridium electrodes that can be used for stimulation and recording.

The Reprocessed LASSO 2515 NAV eco Variable Catheter features a Nitinol loop design that allows the expansion and contraction of the loop to custom-fit veins with different sizes, ranging from 25mm to 15mm diameter (± 15%).

The Reprocessed LASSO NAV eco Catheter is a fixed catheter with three fixed catheter sizes, namely 15, 20, 25 mm loop sizes to accommodate different vein sizes, Each loop size will be available with either 10 or 20 electrodes.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a reprocessed medical device, specifically the Reprocessed LASSO NAV eco and Reprocessed LASSO 2515 NAV eco Variable Electrophysiology (EP) Catheter. The purpose of this type of submission is to demonstrate that a new or reprocessed medical device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device already legally marketed. Therefore, the "study" referred to in the prompt is actually the bench and laboratory testing performed to demonstrate that the reprocessed device is as safe and effective as the original, legally marketed predicate device.

Here's an analysis of the provided information based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document doesn't explicitly state quantitative acceptance criteria in a dedicated table format for each performance metric, nor does it provide specific numerical results for each test. Instead, it lists the types of tests performed and concludes that the reprocessed devices are "as safe and effective as the predicate devices."

However, based on the types of functional and safety testing listed, we can infer the general categories of acceptance criteria:

Note: The document explicitly states: "The purpose, design, materials, function, and intended use of the Reprocessed LASSO 2515 NAV eco Variable Catheter and Reprocessed LASSO NAV eco Catheter are identical to the predicate devices. There are no changes to the claims, clinical applications, patient population, performance specifications, or method of operation." This implies that the acceptance criteria for the reprocessed device would be to meet the specifications and performance of the original, new device.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size:
  • The document does not specify the sample size (number of reprocessed catheters) used for any of the individual tests. It only states that "Bench and laboratory testing was conducted."
• Data Provenance:
  • The testing was conducted by Innovative Health, LLC., based in Scottsdale, Arizona, USA. The data would therefore be considered prospective as it was generated specifically for this 510(k) submission to demonstrate the performance of the reprocessed devices.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

This question is not applicable in the context of this device. This is a reprocessed electrophysiology catheter, and the "ground truth" for its performance is established by comparing its physical and functional characteristics to the original, new device specifications and performance. There isn't a "test set" of clinical data for which experts establish a diagnostic ground truth, as would be the case for an AI-powered diagnostic device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable for this type of device submission. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used in studies where human readers are making interpretations (e.g., reading medical images) and their decisions need to be reconciled to establish a ground truth.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

No. An MRMC study is typically used for diagnostic or imaging devices to assess the performance of different readers or different technologies (e.g., with or without AI assistance) on a set of cases. This document concerns the reprocessing of an electrophysiology catheter, which is an interventional/diagnostic tool, not an imaging interpretation device.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

No. This question applies to AI algorithms. The device in question is a physical medical catheter.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for this reprocessed device is the established specifications and performance characteristics of the legally marketed predicate devices (the original, new LASSO NAV eco and LASSO 2515 NAV eco Variable Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters). The testing aims to demonstrate that the reprocessed device performs equivalently to these established benchmarks.

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. As this is not an AI/machine learning device, there is no training set or associated ground truth in that context.

Ask a specific question about this device

Reprocessed Diagnostic Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters are intended for temporary intracardiac sensing, recording, stimulation, and electrophysiology mapping of cardiac structures. The reprocessed IBI AFocus 100 Steerable and the Inquiry TM Optima™ catheters are to be used to map the atrial regions of the heart. The reprocessed Inquiry™ fixed curve and steerable catheters are commonly placed at the high right atrium, right ventricular apex, and HIS bundle.

The Reprocessed Diagnostic Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters are specially designed electrode catheters that transmit electrical impulses and can be positioned for endocardial recording or stimulation. Diagnostic EP catheters incorporate a hand piece, a flexible shaft and a distal tip section containing diagnostic electrodes. The distal tip of deflectable catheters can be deflected into a curve by manipulating the hand piece. Specific to the Inquiry™ Optima™, Optima™ Plus steerable electrophysiology catheters: The catheter incorporates both a deflectable shaft steering mechanism and a distal end with a variable loop diameter, which allows selection of diameters within a specific range. The distal shaft may be deflected by pushing and pulling the thumb control and the distal loop diameter may be expanded or contracted by turning the rotating knob. Specific to the AFocus™ steerable and the Inquiry™ fixed curve and steerable electrophysiology catheters: The catheters are flexible and insulated catheters constructed of noble metal electrodes and thermoplastic elastomer material. The control mechanism located in the handle at the proximal end of the catheter manipulates the tip of the steerable catheters. The distal tip on the AFocus™ catheter has been designed to expedite the collection of electrogram recordings of a circumferential area.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for "Reprocessed Electrophysiology Catheters" by Stryker Sustainability Solutions. It details the device, its intended use, and the performance data submitted to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices.

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 does not explicitly list quantitative acceptance criteria in a numerical table format for device performance. Instead, it states that "Performance testing demonstrates that Reprocessed Electrophysiology Catheters perform as originally intended." This implies that the acceptance criterion is that the reprocessed devices function equivalently to the original, new devices. The reported performance is that this equivalence has been demonstrated through various tests.

The performance data listed includes:

• Biocompatibility
• Validation of reprocessing
• Sterilization Validation
• Function test(s)
• Packaging Validation

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 size used for the test set for any of the performance tests (Biocompatibility, Reprocessing Validation, Sterilization Validation, Function Tests, Packaging Validation). It also does not mention the country of origin of the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective.

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 information is not provided in the document. The type of device (reprocessed catheters) and the nature of the tests (biocompatibility, sterilization, function) suggest that ground truth would likely be established through standardized laboratory methods and measurements, rather than human expert interpretation of images or clinical outcomes.

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

This information is not applicable and is not provided in the document. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving human interpretation or subjective endpoints. The tests described are primarily objective bench and laboratory tests.

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:

This is not applicable to the device described. The device is a reprocessed electrophysiology catheter, and the studies mentioned are bench and laboratory tests. There is no AI component, no human readers involved in interpreting results in the way an MRMC study would assess, and therefore no effect size relating to AI assistance.

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

This is not applicable as the device is a reprocessed medical instrument, not an algorithm or AI system.

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

For the performance tests mentioned (Biocompatibility, Validation of reprocessing, Sterilization Validation, Function test(s), Packaging Validation), the ground truth would be established by:

• Biocompatibility: Adherence to ISO standards (e.g., ISO 10993) and established toxicological profiles.
• Validation of reprocessing: Verification that the reprocessing steps (cleaning, disinfection, inspection) meet predefined criteria to render the device clinically safe and functional. This would involve testing for residual soil, microbial load, and material integrity.
• Sterilization Validation: Demonstrating a specified sterility assurance level (SAL), typically 10^-6, through established sterilization methodologies (e.g., ethylene oxide or steam sterilization validation protocols).
• Function test(s): Comparison of critical performance parameters (e.g., electrical conductivity, steerability, mechanical integrity, electrode adhesion) of the reprocessed device against predetermined specifications (often based on the original new device's specifications).
• Packaging Validation: Ensuring package integrity and maintenance of sterility through simulated shipping and environmental challenges (e.g., according to ISO 11607).

These forms of ground truth are based on objective, measurable criteria and established scientific standards, rather than expert consensus on subjective findings, pathology, or long-term outcomes data.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This is not applicable. The device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

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

This is not applicable. The device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

Reprocessed diagnostic EP catheters are indicated for temporary intracardiac sensing, recording, stimulation and electrophysiological mapping of cardiac structures. In addition, the LASSO® 2515 Variable Circular Mapping Catheter and the Reflexion Spiral 140 Variable Radius Catheter are designed for electrophysiological mapping of the atria of the heart.

Diagnostic Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters are specially designed electrode catheters that transmit electrical impulses and can be positioned for endocardial recording or stimulation. Diagnostic EP catheters incorporate a hand piece, a flexible shaft and a distal tip section containing diagnostic electrodes. The distal tip of deflectable catheters can be deflected into a curve by manipulating the hand piece.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for Ascent Healthcare Solutions' Reprocessed Electrophysiology Catheters (K090323). This submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices through various performance tests, but it does not include a study design or acceptance criteria related to a diagnostic algorithm or AI performance.

Therefore, I cannot provide information on acceptance criteria for a diagnostic device's performance, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance, as these items are not discussed in the provided regulatory document.

However, I can extract the information regarding the performance data presented in the 510(k) summary, which focuses on the safety and effectiveness of the reprocessing procedure and the reprocessed physical device, rather than the diagnostic accuracy of an algorithm.

Here's the relevant information based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (as pertaining to reprocessed physical device, not AI/diagnostic algorithm performance):

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

• Sample Size: Not specified in the provided text. The document mentions "Bench and laboratory testing," implying physical testing of reprocessed devices, but does not quantify the number of units tested.
• Data Provenance: Not specified. The testing was conducted by Ascent Healthcare Solutions. There is no mention of country of origin or whether it was retrospective or prospective, as these terms are typically used for clinical data rather than bench testing.

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

• Not Applicable. This submission concerns the reprocessing of a physical medical device, not a diagnostic algorithm that requires expert ground truth for image interpretation or diagnosis. The "ground truth" for this submission would be defined by engineering specifications and industry standards for medical device performance and reprocessing.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not Applicable. As explained above, this is not a study assessing diagnostic accuracy requiring expert adjudication.

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 type of study is completely unrelated to the content of this 510(k) submission. No AI component is mentioned or evaluated.

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

• No. There is no algorithm or AI component in this device.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• The "ground truth" for the performance tests (biocompatibility, reprocessing validation, sterilization validation, function tests, packaging validation) would be based on established engineering specifications, industry standards, and regulatory requirements for medical devices and their reprocessing. For example, sterilization validation would have standards for sterility assurance levels, and function tests would have specified electrical and mechanical performance criteria that the reprocessed catheters must meet to perform "as originally intended," mirroring the predicate device.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. There is no training set mentioned or implied as this is not an AI or diagnostic algorithm submission.

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

• Not Applicable. There is no training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

Reprocessed Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters are indicated for temporary intracardiac sensing, recording, stimulation and electrophysiological mapping of cardiac structures. In addition, the Lasso® 2515 Variable Circular Mapping Catheter is designed for electrophysiological mapping of the atria of the heart.

Diagnostic Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters are specially designed electrode catheters that transmit electrical impulses and can be positioned for endocardial recording or stimulation. Diagnostic EP catheters incorporate a hand piece, a flexible shaft and a distal tip section containing diagnostic electrodes. The distal tip of deflectable catheters can be deflected into a curve by manipulating the hand piece.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding acceptance criteria and the supporting study:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The provided text, a 510(k) summary for Reprocessed Electrophysiology Catheters, does not explicitly define quantitative acceptance criteria for device performance in a table format. Instead, it broadly states that "Performance testing demonstrates that Reprocessed Electrophysiology Catheters perform as originally intended."

The closest approximations to "acceptance criteria" are the types of tests performed. Since specific numerical targets for these tests are not provided, I will present the tests as the criteria implied to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The document does not provide specific sample sizes for the test sets used in biocompatibility, reprocessing validation, sterilization validation, function tests, or packaging validation. It only states that "Bench and laboratory testing was conducted." The data provenance is also not specified beyond being "bench and laboratory testing," implying it was conducted by Ascent Healthcare Solutions, likely in a controlled, prospective manner to demonstrate equivalence. There is no mention of country of origin of the data.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

This information is not provided in the document. The study described is a series of bench and laboratory tests to demonstrate device performance and equivalence to predicate devices, not a clinical study involving diagnosis or interpretation by human experts to establish ground truth.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as the described study is focused on bench and laboratory testing of the reprocessed device itself, not on human interpretation or diagnostic accuracy where adjudication would be relevant.

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

An MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not conducted. The device is a reprocessed medical catheter, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretative system.

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

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

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the performance testing (biocompatibility, reprocessing, sterilization, function, packaging), the ground truth was established through validated laboratory methods and engineering specifications designed to ensure the reprocessed device meets the original design requirements and safety standards of the new predicate devices. For demonstrating equivalence, the ground truth was the specifications and performance characteristics of the predicate devices.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

The concept of a "training set" is not applicable here. This document describes the re-processing of medical devices, not the development or training of an AI algorithm.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

This information is not applicable as there is no training set mentioned or implied in the context of this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Reprocessed Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters are indicated for temporary intracardiac sensing, recording, stimulation and electrophysiological mapping of cardiac structures.

Diagnostic Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters are specially designed electrode catheters that transmit electrical impulses and can be positioned for endocardial recording or stimulation. Diagnostic EP catheters incorporate a hand piece, a flexible shaft and a distal tip section containing diagnostic electrodes. The distal tip of deflectable catheters can be deflected into a curve by manipulating the hand piece. Reprocessed Electrophysiology Catheters are intended for temporary intracardiac sensing, recording, stimulation, and electrophysiology mapping of cardiac structures.

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for a reprocessed medical device, specifically Electrophysiology Catheters. This type of submission focuses on proving "substantial equivalence" to existing legally marketed devices (predicates) rather than establishing new performance claims or conducting clinical efficacy studies.

Therefore, the acceptance criteria and study information requested, which are typically associated with demonstrating novel performance or clinical superiority of a device, are not directly applicable in the context of this 510(k) submission.

Here's an analysis based on the available information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This document does not present specific quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed device performance metrics in the way one would see for a new device's clinical trial or performance study. Instead, the performance demonstration focuses on showing that the reprocessed devices function identically to their predicate devices and meet safety standards after reprocessing.

The "Performance data" section states:

• "Bench and laboratory testing was conducted to demonstrate performance (safety and effectiveness) of Reprocessed Electrophysiology Catheters."
• This included:
  • Biocompatibility
  • Validation of reprocessing
  • Sterilization Validation
  • Function test(s)
  • Packaging Validation
• "Performance testing demonstrates that Reprocessed Electrophysiology Catheters perform as originally intended."

Since there are no specific numeric acceptance criteria or quantitative performance results provided in the summary, a table cannot be populated as requested. The "acceptance criteria" here are implied to be adherence to the original device specifications and established reprocessing standards. The "reported device performance" is a general statement that they "perform as originally intended."

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The document does not specify the sample size used for the bench and laboratory testing. It also does not explicitly state the data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective) for these tests. This information is typically found in the detailed test protocols and reports, which are not part of this summary.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of those Experts

This is not applicable to the type of testing described (bench and laboratory). Bench testing for medical devices typically relies on engineering specifications and measurement against those specifications, not expert consensus on interpretations of qualitative data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This is not applicable. Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) are used for resolving disagreements among human readers or experts when establishing ground truth, typically in image interpretation or diagnostic studies. The tests mentioned (biocompatibility, sterilization, function, packaging) are objective, quantitative, or qualitative assessments against predefined standards, not subjective interpretations requiring adjudication.

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

This is not applicable. The device described is a reprocessed electrophysiology catheter, which is a physical medical device, not an AI or software algorithm. Therefore, an MRMC study related to AI assistance for human readers is irrelevant.

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

This is not applicable as the device is not an algorithm or AI.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the bench and laboratory testing:

• Biocompatibility: Ground truth would be adherence to established biocompatibility standards (e.g., ISO 10993).
• Validation of reprocessing: Ground truth would be the successful removal of soil, decontamination, and functionality post-reprocessing, verified by established protocols and measurable criteria.
• Sterilization Validation: Ground truth would be a Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) meeting an accepted standard (e.g., 10^-6), confirmed by established sterilization validation methods.
• Function test(s): Ground truth would be that the reprocessed catheter performs according to the original manufacturer's specifications for function (e.g., electrical conductivity, deflection, structural integrity).
• Packaging Validation: Ground truth would be that the packaging maintains sterility and integrity, confirmed by established packaging validation methods.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This is not applicable. The device is a reprocessed physical medical device, not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

This is not applicable, as there is no training set for a physical reprocessed device.

In Summary:

The provided document describes a 510(k) submission for a reprocessed electrophysiology catheter. The "acceptance criteria" and "study" described are fundamental safety and performance validations for a reprocessed medical device, ensuring it remains equivalent to the original, legally marketed device. It does not involve AI, clinical trials, or expert consensus studies for diagnostic interpretation. The focus is on demonstrating that the reprocessing does not compromise the device's original intended use, safety, or effectiveness.

Ask a specific question about this device

Reprocessed Electrophysiology Catheters are indicated for temporary intracardiac sensing, recording, stimulation and electrophysiological mapping of cardiac structures.

Diagnostic Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters are specially designed electrode catheters that transmit electrical impulses and can be positioned for endocardial recording or stimulation. Diagnostic EP catheters incorporate a hand piece, a flexible shaft and a distal tip section containing diagnostic electrodes. The distal tip of deflectable catheters can be deflected into a curve by manipulating the hand piece.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for Alliance Medical Corporation's Reprocessed Electrophysiology Catheters (K061045) based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Important Note: The provided 510(k) summary is a high-level overview. It lists the types of tests conducted but does not provide specific acceptance values or detailed results for each test. The conclusion section broadly states that the device passes.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

• Sample Size: Not explicitly stated in the provided text. The document mentions "Bench and laboratory testing" but doesn't quantify the number of reprocessed catheters or tests performed during the performance evaluation.
• Data Provenance: The studies were retrospective in the sense that they were conducted on already reprocessed devices, comparing their performance to the "originally intended" performance of the new predicate devices. The country of origin for the data is implicitly the United States, where Alliance Medical Corporation is based and where the testing would have been overseen for FDA submission.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

• This information is not provided in the document. The studies described are bench and laboratory tests, not clinical studies involving human observers forming a ground truth for diagnostic accuracy.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1) are relevant for studies where multiple human readers interpret data to establish a ground truth. Since the studies described are bench and laboratory tests, an adjudication method for a test set is not applicable or mentioned.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not conducted or mentioned. This type of study typically involves human readers using a device (often an AI) to evaluate cases. The studies here are bench tests on the reprocessed physical device.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• Not applicable. This device is a reprocessed physical medical device (catheter), not an algorithm or software. Therefore, there is no "standalone" algorithm performance to evaluate. The performance noted is that of the reprocessed physical product.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth for the bench and laboratory tests would have been established by engineering and performance specifications of the original, new predicate devices. For example, a function test for electrical conductivity would compare the reprocessed catheter's performance against the expected conductivity of a new catheter. The "ground truth" is adherence to established engineering parameters and predicate device performance.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This device is a reprocessed physical medical device, not an AI or machine learning model that requires a training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established

• Not applicable. As stated above, there is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device

Reprocessed Diagnostic Electrophysiology Catheters are indicated for temporary intracardiac sensing, recording, stimulation, and electrophysiology mapping of cardiac structures.

Diagnostic Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters are specially designed electrode catheters that transmit electrical impulses and can be positioned for endocardial recording or stimulation. Diagnostic EP catheters incorporate a hand piece, a flexible shaft and a distal tip section containing diagnostic electrodes. The distal tip of deflectable catheters can be deflected into a curve by manipulating the hand piece.

This document describes the 510(k) submission for Reprocessed Electrophysiology Catheters by Alliance Medical Corporation. The focus is on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than establishing specific acceptance criteria for novel performance features. Therefore, many of the requested data points related to clinical study design and ground truth are not applicable or not provided in the typical sense for an AI/CAD device.

Given the information provided, here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the "study" that proves the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

For this 510(k) submission, the "acceptance criteria" are primarily related to proving that the reprocessed device performs identically and as originally intended compared to new, predicate devices. The performance data focuses on demonstrating that the reprocessing does not negatively impact the catheter's function and safety.

Overall Conclusion regarding "Acceptance Criteria"

The overall acceptance criterion is: "Reprocessed Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters perform as originally intended" and are "safe, effective and substantially equivalent to the predicate devices." The "study" (bench and laboratory testing) aimed to demonstrate this equivalence across the listed categories.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and the Data Provenance

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document does not specify the sample size for the bench and laboratory testing. It merely states that such testing was conducted.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of patient data provenance, as this is bench/laboratory testing on devices, not a clinical study involving patients.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and the Qualifications of Those Experts

• This is not applicable to this type of submission. "Ground truth" in the context of device reprocessing is typically established through established engineering standards, material science, microbiology (for sterility validation), and performance specifications for the original device. There isn't a need for "expert consensus" on diagnostic findings or clinical outcomes in the same way as an AI/CAD device.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable as this is bench and laboratory testing against predetermined specifications and scientific principles, not a clinical trial requiring adjudicators for patient outcomes or diagnostic interpretations.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This is a 510(k) for a reprocessed medical device (a catheter), not an AI/CAD system. Therefore, the concept of "human readers improving with AI" is not relevant to this submission.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a reprocessed physical medical instrument, not an algorithm or software. Its performance is inherent to its physical properties and functionality.

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

• The "ground truth" for this submission is based on the original performance specifications and safety profiles of the new, predicate electrophysiology catheters, coupled with established engineering, material science, and sterilization validation standards. For example:
  • Biocompatibility: Demonstrated against ISO standards for medical devices.
  • Sterilization: Validated to achieve a specific Sterility Assurance Level (SAL), often 10^-6, through established microbiological methods.
  • Functionality: Measured against the mechanical and electrical specifications of the original device (e.g., impedance range, signal-to-noise ratio, deflection force, physical integrity).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/machine learning device, so there is no "training set."

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

• Not applicable. As there is no training set for an AI/ML model, there is no corresponding ground truth to establish for it.

Ask a specific question about this device

Reprocessed Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters are indicated for temporary intracardiac sensing, recording, stimulation and electrophysiological mapping of cardiac structures.

Diagnostic electrophysiology (EP) catheters are specially designed electrode catheters that transmit electrical impulses and can be positioned for endocardial recording or stimulation. Diagnostic EP catheters incorporate a handpiece, a flexible shaft and a distal tip section containing diagnostic electrodes. The distal tips of deflectable catheters can be deflected into a curve by manipulating the handpiece; fixed curve catheters have an established distal tip shape. Reprocessed Electrophysiology Catheters are intended for temporary intracardiac sensing, recording, stimulation, and electrophysiological mapping of cardiac structures.

This document describes the Reprocessed Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters by Alliance Medical Corporation.
Here's a breakdown of the requested information:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The provided document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria with numerical targets (e.g., "sensitivity > 90%"). Instead, the acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the demonstration that the reprocessed catheters perform "as originally intended" and are "safe, effective and substantially equivalent to the predicate devices."

The reported device performance is a categorical assertion of meeting these implied criteria through various tests.

Study Details

The provided information pertains to a 510(k) premarket notification for a reprocessed medical device. This type of submission relies heavily on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than conducting large-scale clinical trials measuring performance against specific endpoints in a patient population.

1. 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 a numerical sample size for the "test set" in the traditional sense of a clinical study. The performance data is based on "Bench and laboratory testing." This would typically involve a sample of reprocessed catheters undergoing the listed tests. The exact number of catheters tested is not provided, which is common for 510(k) submissions focusing on substantial equivalence through engineering and laboratory testing rather than clinical performance data.
   • Data Provenance: The testing was conducted by Alliance Medical Corporation, located in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. The data is retrospective in the sense that it evaluates the performance of the reprocessed devices under controlled lab conditions.

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

   • Not applicable in this context. The "ground truth" for this type of submission is not established by human experts interpreting clinical data. Instead, the "ground truth" is adherence to engineering specifications, validated reprocessing procedures, and performance metrics (e.g., electrical conductivity, mechanical integrity, sterility) derived from the original device's specifications and regulatory requirements for reprocessed devices. The expertise involved would be in engineering, microbiology, and quality assurance, rather than clinical specialists establishing a "diagnosis."

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

   • Not applicable. Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used in clinical trials where multiple human readers interpret medical images or patient data to establish a consensus ground truth. This submission relies on objective, measurable laboratory and bench tests, where the results are typically quantitative or pass/fail based on predefined criteria, not subjective interpretation requiring adjudication.

4. 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 submission for a reprocessed medical device (electrophysiology catheters), not an AI diagnostic or assistance tool. Therefore, an MRMC study and effects on human reader performance are not relevant.

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

   • No. This is a physical medical device, not a software algorithm.

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

   • The "ground truth" for this submission is based on objective engineering specifications, validated reprocessing parameters, and standardized laboratory tests (e.g., sterility tests, mechanical integrity tests, electrical function tests). It is essentially conformance to established benchmarks for the original device and regulatory standards for reprocessed devices.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable in the typical sense of machine learning. This is a reprocessed physical device. There isn't a "training set" to develop an algorithm. However, the development of the reprocessing procedures themselves would involve extensive internal testing and refinement, which could be seen as an iterative "training" process for the reprocessing protocol, but not a data set in the AI context.

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

   • Not applicable. As noted above, there isn't a "training set" for an algorithm. The "ground truth" for developing the reprocessing procedure would be successful validation that the reprocessed device consistently meets the performance and safety characteristics of a new equivalent device. This involves engineering design, material science, and regulatory compliance expertise.

Ask a specific question about this device

Reprocessed Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters are indicated for temporary intracardiac sensing, recording, stimulation and electrophysiological mapping of cardiac structures.
Reprocessed electrophysiology catheter cables are indicated for use with the appropriate electrode catheter during electrophysiology studies.

Diagnostic electrophysiology (EP) catheters are specially designed electrode catheters that transmit electrical impulses and can be positioned for endocardial recording or stimulation. Diagnostic EP catheters incorporate a handpiece, a flexible shaft and a distal tip section containing diagnostic electrodes. The distal tips of deflectable catheters can be deflected into a curve by manipulating the handpiece; fixed curve catheters have an established distal tip shape.

The provided text details the FDA clearance for Alliance Medical Corporation's Reprocessed Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters. However, it does not contain a specific "acceptance criteria" table with numerical performance metrics or a detailed study description with sample sizes, ground truth establishment, or expert qualifications as requested.

The document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than presenting a standalone study with quantitative performance data against predefined acceptance criteria.

Here's what can be extracted and what is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

This information is not explicitly present in the provided document. The document states: "Performance testing demonstrates that Reprocessed Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters perform as originally intended." and "Alliance Medical Corporation concludes that the modified device the Reprocessed Electrophysiology (EP) Catheter is safe, effective and substantially equivalent to the predicate devices as described herein." This implies that the reprocessed devices met certain performance expectations, but the specific, quantifiable acceptance criteria and the numerical results against them are not provided.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified in the document. The document mentions "Each individual electrophysiology catheter is tested for appropriate function of its components prior to packaging and labeling operations," but it does not provide the sample size of catheters used for the performance testing cited in the submission.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin or whether the data was retrospective or prospective. It refers to "Bench and laboratory testing."

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts:

Not applicable or not specified. The document describes "Bench and laboratory testing" and "Function test(s)." This suggests instrumental testing rather than expert-derived ground truth based on clinical interpretation (e.g., radiologists interpreting images). If "ground truth" refers to the original device specifications or functionality, it was likely established by the manufacturer's engineering and quality control departments.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable or not specified. The nature of the testing (bench and laboratory) does not suggest a need for an adjudication method in the way one would for clinical imaging studies.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done, and the Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs. Without AI Assistance:

Not applicable. The device described is a reprocessed medical catheter, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool, and therefore, an MRMC study comparing human reader performance with or without AI assistance is not relevant or mentioned.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done:

Not applicable. This device is a physical medical instrument (catheter), not a standalone algorithm. Its performance is inherent in its physical and electrical characteristics.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

The "ground truth" for this type of device would typically be the original manufacturer's specifications for new, equivalent devices, and possibly established performance benchmarks for functionality, electrical integrity, and material properties. The document states: "Performance testing demonstrates that Reprocessed Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters perform as originally intended" and implies they are "substantially equivalent to the predicate devices." This suggests the ground truth for their "performance" is derived from the expected function and specifications of the original, new devices.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. This is a reprocessed physical device, not a machine learning model, so there is no training set in the AI sense.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

Not applicable for the same reason as above.

Summary of what is present:

• Device: Reprocessed Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters.
• Indication for Use: "temporary intracardiac sensing, recording, stimulation and electrophysiological mapping of cardiac structures."
• Performance Data: "Bench and laboratory testing was conducted to demonstrate performance (safety and effectiveness) of the Reprocessed Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters. Biocompatibility Validation of reprocessing Sterilization Validation Function test(s)."
• Conclusion: The reprocessed device "is safe, effective and substantially equivalent to the predicate devices."
• Key tests performed: Biocompatibility, reprocessing validation, sterilization validation, function tests.

In conclusion, while the document confirms that performance testing was done and the devices were deemed "safe, effective and substantially equivalent," it lacks the detailed quantitative acceptance criteria and study particulars (like sample sizes, ground truth establishment methods, and expert involvement) commonly found in submissions for AI/ML-based medical devices or diagnostic tools.

Ask a specific question about this device

Reprocessed Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters are indicated for temporary intracardiac sensing, recording, stimulation and electrophysiological mapping of cardiac structures.

Reprocessed Electrophysiology Catheter Cables are indicated for use with the appropriate electrode catheter during electrophysiology studies.

Diagnostic electrophysiology (EP) catheters are specially designed electrode catheters that transmit electrical impulses and can be positioned for endocardial recording or stimulation. Diagnostic EP catheters incorporate a handpiece, a flexible shaft and a distal tip section containing diagnostic electrodes. The distal tips of deflectable catheters can be deflected into a curve by manipulating the handpiece; fixed curve catheters have an established distal tip shape.

Alliance Medical Corporation's reprocessing of electrophysiology catheters includes removal of adherent visible soil and decontamination. Each individual electrophysiology catheter is tested for appropriate function of its components prior to packaging and labeling operations.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the Alliance Medical Corporation's Reprocessed Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters. As such, it describes the device and its intended use, but it does not detail specific acceptance criteria or a dedicated study that proves the device meets particular performance metrics beyond what is stated in the "Performance data" section.

However, based on the provided text, we can infer some information relating to acceptance criteria and the "study" (validation activities) performed.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

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

The document does not explicitly present a table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance results. Instead, it broadly states that "Performance data: Bench and laboratory testing was conducted to demonstrate performance (safety and effectiveness) of the Reprocessed Electrophysiology (EP) Catheters."

The reported areas of performance validation are:

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 states, "Each individual electrophysiology catheter is tested for appropriate function of its components prior to packaging and labeling operations." This implies that every reprocessed device undergoes functional testing as part of the quality control process.

For biocompatibility, reprocessing validation, and sterilization validation, the document does not specify the sample size or data provenance. These types of validations are typically prospective studies conducted in a controlled laboratory environment. The country of origin of the data is not specified, but given the company (Alliance Medical Corporation) is based in Phoenix, Arizona, USA, it's highly probable the testing was conducted in the US or by a contracted lab.

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 information is not provided in the document. The validation activities mentioned (biocompatibility, reprocessing, sterilization, function tests) are primarily objective technical validations and would not typically involve expert "ground truth" establishment in the way it's used for AI/clinical diagnostic studies.

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

This information is not provided and is not applicable to the types of technical validations described in the document. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies where subjective interpretation or classification is involved.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This document describes the reprocessing of medical devices, not an AI software device.

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

No, a standalone algorithm performance study was not done. This document pertains to physical reprocessed medical devices, not an algorithm.

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

For the mentioned "Function test(s)," the ground truth is against the original intended function of the new (unreprocessed) device. For biocompatibility, reprocessing, and sterilization, the "ground truth" is established by regulatory standards and industry-accepted test methods that define what constitutes a "biocompatible," "effectively reprocessed," or "sterile" device.

8. The sample size for the training set

This concept is not applicable to this document. "Training set" refers to data used to train an AI algorithm, which is not the subject of this 510(k) summary.

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

This concept is not applicable to this document.

Ask a specific question about this device