Search Results

An intravascular diagnostic catheter is a device used to record intracardiac pressure, to sample blood, and to introduce substances into the circulatory system.

The 4F SiteSeer catheter is an intravascular diagnostic catheter for use in the cardiovascular svstem.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the Bard® 4F SiteSeer™ Angiographic Cardiovascular Catheter. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than proving performance against specific acceptance criteria for a new, innovative device feature. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" in the context of typical AI/medical imaging device submissions is not present.

However, I can extract information related to the device's equivalence to existing technology based on the provided text.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

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

The document does not specify quantitative acceptance criteria in the way a modern AI or imaging device submission would (e.g., target sensitivity, specificity, or AUC). Instead, the "acceptance criteria" here is implicitly defined as substantial equivalence to predicate devices in terms of materials, construction, packaging, sterilization, and intended use.

Acceptance Criteria (Implicit: Substantial Equivalence to Predicate 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 explicitly states "Safety and performance testing was performed." However, it does not provide details about:

• The sample size of any test set.
• The data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective nature).
• The specific tests performed, other than stating they were to demonstrate substantial equivalence. This would typically involve bench testing for material properties, mechanical integrity, biocompatibility, etc., but no specifics are given in this summary.

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 applicable or not provided in this type of 510(k) submission. This is a medical device (catheter) and not an AI or diagnostic imaging device that typically requires expert-established ground truth for performance evaluation against a diagnostic standard. The performance testing would be against engineering specifications and biocompatibility standards, not clinical diagnostic accuracy.

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

This information is not applicable or not provided. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation (e.g., by radiologists), not for the engineering and safety testing of a physical medical device like a catheter for which this 510(k) was submitted.

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 information is not applicable. An MRMC study is relevant for AI-assisted diagnostic devices. This submission concerns a physical intravascular diagnostic catheter and does not involve human readers interpreting images, nor does it involve AI assistance.

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

This information is not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

As this is a physical medical device (catheter), the "ground truth" for its performance would typically be established by validated engineering standards, biocompatibility testing results, and other relevant regulatory tests. The document does not specify the exact "type of ground truth" used beyond stating that "safety and performance testing was performed."

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not applicable. This is a physical medical device and does not involve AI or machine learning models that require training sets.

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

This information is not applicable. This is a physical medical device and does not involve AI or machine learning models that require training sets.

Ask a specific question about this device