Search Results

The Rist™ 079 Radial Access Guide Catheter is indicated for the introduction of interventional devices into the peripheral, coronary, and neuro vasculature.

The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter is indicated for the introduction of interventional devices into the peripheral, coronary, and neuro vasculature.

The Rist™ Radial Access Selective Catheter is indicated for the introduction of interventional devices into the peripheral, coronary, and neuro vasculature. It can be used to facilitate introduction of diagnostic agents in the neuro vasculature. It is not intended to facilitate introduction of diagnostic agents in coronary or peripheral arteries.

The Rist™ Radial Access Selective Catheter is a flexible, single lumen catheter, with a radiopaque stainless-steel braid reinforced shaft to provide support. The distal tip of the catheter is shaped to have a smooth, rounded tip and is offered in two different distal segment shapes: Simmons 2 (SIM2) and Berenstein (BER). The braided, tapered shaft of the catheter is visible under fluoroscopy and has a luer connector in its proximal end for the attachment of accessories and the infusion of fluids. The Rist™ Radial Access Selective Catheter has no hydrophilic coating. The Rist™ Radial Access Selective Catheter is supplied sterile, non-pyrogenic, and intended for single use only.

The Rist™ 079 Radial Access Guide Catheter is a single lumen, variable stiffness catheter with a stainless steel and nitinol reinforced shaft to provide support. The catheter has a radiopaque marker band on the distal end to aid in visualization. The distal 25 cm of the Rist™ 079 Radial Access Guide Catheter has a hydrophilic coating which reduces the insertion force and allows the catheter to traverse the vasculature more easily. The Rist™ 079 Radial Access Guide Catheter has a PTFE-lined lumen to reduce friction with other devices introduced through the lumen. It is intended to provide access to the target site via transradial access and, once in place, provides a reinforcing conduit for other intravascular devices. A radial access dilator is included as an accessory. The Rist™ 079 Radial Access Guide Catheter is supplied sterile, non-pyrogenic, and intended for single use only.

The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter is a single lumen, variable stiffness catheter with a stainless steel and nitinol reinforced shaft to provide support. The embedded stainless-steel flat wire cross coil is in the proximal section of the catheter, which transitions to a nitinol round wire single coil in the distal end. The catheter has a radiopaque platinum/iridium marker band on to aid in visualization. The distal 25 cm of the Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter has a hydrophilic coating which reduces the insertion force and allows the catheter to traverse the vasculature more easily. The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter has a PTFE- lined lumen to reduce friction with other devices introduced through the lumen. It is intended to provide access to the target site via transradial access and, once in place, provides a reinforcing conduit for other intravascular devices. A radial access dilator is included as an accessory. The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter is supplied sterile, non-pyrogenic, and intended for single use only.

Despite the request for a detailed description of acceptance criteria and study information, the provided text does not contain information related to specific acceptance criteria, device performance metrics, or a study report in the context of AI/ML device evaluation.

The document is an FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification for a medical device (catheters), not an AI/ML diagnostic or prognostic system. Therefore, the questions about sample size for test sets, data provenance, number of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth types, and training set details are not applicable to the content provided.

The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of the subject catheters to predicate devices, primarily based on design features, indications for use, and bench testing.

Here's a summary of what is available in the document, which addresses some points but not in the context of AI/ML performance evaluation:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document states that:

• Acceptance Criteria (Implied): The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the standards outlined in ANSI/AAMI HE75:2009/(R) 2018. The document does not provide the specific numerical or qualitative acceptance criteria used within this standard for the "In-vitro Simulated Use Study."
• Reported Device Performance: The reported performance is a high-level statement: "The devices met the acceptance criteria." Specific metrics, ranges, or quantitative results are not provided.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
Not applicable, as this was a bench test and not an AI/ML study involving patient data.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
Not applicable. Ground truth establishment for medical images by experts is not relevant to this bench testing of physical catheter devices.

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 not an AI-assisted device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
Not applicable. This is not an AI algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:
For the "In-vitro Simulated Use Study," the "ground truth" would be the successful completion of tasks or performance within acceptable parameters as defined by the ANSI/AAMI HE75:2009/(R) 2018 standard for simulated use. This is a technical performance standard, not a clinical ground truth.

8. The sample size for the training set:
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

In summary, the provided text describes regulatory approval for physical medical devices (catheters) based on substantial equivalence and bench testing, not an AI/ML-driven device that would require the in-depth data and performance metrics requested in the prompt.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter is indicated for the introduction of interventional devices into the peripheral, coronary, and neuro vasculature.

The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter is a single lumen, variable stiffness catheter with a stainless steel and nitinol reinforced shaft to provide support. The embedded stainless-steel flat wire cross coil is in the proximal section of the catheter, which transitions to a nitinol round wire single coil in the distal end. The catheter has a radiopaque platinum/iridium marker band on the distal end to aid in visualization. The distal 25 cm of the Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter has a hydrophilic coating which reduces the insertion force and allows the catheter to traverse the vasculature more easily. The catheter has a nominal outer diameter of 0.084 inches and a nominal inner diameter of 0.071 inches. It is available in three working lengths: 95 cm, 100 cm, and 105 cm. The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter has a PTFE-lined lumen to reduce friction with other devices introduced through the lumen. It is intended to provide access to the target site via transradial access and, once in place, provides a reinforcing conduit for other intravascular devices. A radial access dilator is included as an accessory. The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter is supplied sterile, non-pyrogenic, and intended for single use only.

The Rist™ 071 Radial Access Guide Catheter is a medical device intended for the introduction of interventional devices into the peripheral, coronary, and neuro vasculature. The acceptance criteria and supporting studies are detailed below.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The device underwent extensive testing, and the results consistently indicated that "All units met the acceptance criteria" or similar statements. Specific numerical acceptance criteria were not explicitly provided in the document for most tests, but the qualitative statement of meeting criteria is present.

2. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for each specific test in the "Test Set." However, it repeatedly mentions "All units" or "All units met" indicating that a sufficient number of samples were tested to achieve statistical significance or to demonstrate compliance.

The data provenance is not specified in terms of country of origin. The studies are described as "Design verification and validation" (in-house testing) and based on applicable ISO/ASTM/USP standards, suggesting a laboratory-based, prospective testing approach. No mention of retrospective or prospective clinical data for the test set is present, as this is a pre-market submission focused on device performance rather than clinical outcomes.

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

For the "In vitro Simulated Use Study," it states that "A simulated interventional procedure was performed by physicians." The exact number of physicians or their specific qualifications (e.g., "radiologist with 10 years of experience") are not provided.

For the "Radiopacity" test (from the predicate device), "Physicians were shown fluoroscopic images." Again, the specific number and qualifications of these physicians are not detailed.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

The document does not describe any formal adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) for the tests. The results indicate a direct pass/fail or "met acceptance criteria" outcome, implying consensus on the directly measurable or observable results rather than a subjective assessment requiring adjudication. For physician-evaluated tests, the document indicates a general 'acceptance criteria met' without detailing disagreement resolution.

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

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was mentioned. The studies focused on device performance characteristics rather than comparing human reader performance with or without AI assistance. The device itself is a physical catheter, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

6. Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Study

No standalone algorithm performance study was done. This is consistent with the nature of the device as a physical medical instrument, not a software algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth for most performance tests was established by adherence to recognized international standards (ISO, ASTM, USP) and predefined internal specifications for various physical, chemical, and biological properties. This includes:

• Physical Measurements: Dimensional accuracy (ID, OD, length), tensile strength metrics, burst pressure values, torque limits, kink resistance thresholds.
• Chemical/Biological Properties: Biocompatibility assays (cytotoxicity, sensitization, irritation, systemic toxicity, pyrogenicity, hemocompatibility), chemical compatibility.
• Functional Performance: Leak testing, coating integrity, particulate count, simulated use performance, radiopacity (as confirmed by physicians).
• Sterility and Packaging Integrity: Demonstrated through sterilization validation and packaging tests.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

No training set is applicable or mentioned. This device is a physical medical device, not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable as there is no training set for a physical device.

Ask a specific question about this device