Search Results

The SPECTRUM® Ventricular Catheter is intended for obtaining access to a ventricular cavity of the brain for short-term use to externally drain fluid for the purpose of relieving elevated intracranial pressure or fluid volume. The device will be supplied sterile and is intended for one-time use.

The SPECTRUM® Ventricular Catheter is a 9 Fr catheter nominally 33 cm in length. The catheter has a closed-end configuration with nominally 16 sideports, and has markings at 1 cm increments to aid in determining depth of placement. The SPECTRUM® Ventricular Catheter is impregnated with an antimicrobial combination of minocycline and rifampin which may reduce the risk of catheter related infection during use. Based on HPCC analysis, the average amount of minocycline on the catheter is approximately 5 mg (159 Φg/cm), and the average amount of rifampin on the catheter is approximately 4 mg (116 @g/cm). Components supplied with the SPECTRUM® Ventricular Catheter include a pre-loaded stainless steel stylet, a stainless steel tunneling trocar, and proximal fittings, which are included to facilitate placement and use of the Ventricular Catheter.

The SPECTRUM® Ventricular Catheter is a medical device intended for short-term external drainage of fluid from the ventricular cavity of the brain to relieve elevated intracranial pressure or fluid volume. The information provided outlines the device's characteristics, intended use, and the studies conducted to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to predicate devices and ensure its safety and efficacy.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

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

The provided text does not explicitly state numerical acceptance criteria in a typical "Pass/Fail" format. Instead, it describes various tests and a clinical study designed to demonstrate that the SPECTRUM® Ventricular Catheter performs as intended and is as safe and effective as predicate devices. The "reported device performance" is essentially the successful completion of these tests and the favorable outcomes of the clinical study.

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

• Sample Size for Clinical Study:
  • SPECTRUM® Ventricular Catheter group: 149 patients were followed up.
  • Standard non-coated catheter group (control): 139 patients were followed up.
• Data Provenance: The clinical study was described as a "prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial." The country of origin is not explicitly stated, but the submission is to the U.S. FDA, implying the study was conducted under appropriate regulatory guidelines, likely within the U.S. or internationally with standards acceptable to the FDA.

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)

The document does not specify the number of experts or their qualifications for establishing the ground truth related to the clinical study's outcome (catheter-related infection). The "ground truth" for infection would typically be established by clinical diagnosis, laboratory tests, and potentially microbiological culture results, which would be interpreted by healthcare professionals (physicians, microbiologists). There is no mention of an independent panel of experts reviewing cases in the context of adjudication for ground truth.

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

The document does not describe a specific adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1) for the clinical study's outcomes. Clinical study endpoints, such as catheter-related infection, are typically diagnosed by treating physicians and confirmed by laboratory results, rather than relying on an adjudication panel in the context of device performance claims unless there's a specific nuanced diagnostic challenge. It's presumed that the diagnoses were made by the clinical staff involved in the multicenter trial.

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 MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done as this device is a physical medical device (catheter), not an AI-powered diagnostic or assistive technology. Therefore, the concept of human readers improving with AI assistance is not applicable here.

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

This question is not applicable. The SPECTRUM® Ventricular Catheter is a physical medical device, not an algorithm or AI system.

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

For the clinical study, the ground truth was based on outcomes data, specifically the "incidence of catheter-related infection." This would involve clinical diagnosis of infection, potentially supported by laboratory findings (e.g., cerebrospinal fluid analysis, culture results), and clinical follow-up of patients.

For the other non-clinical tests (biocompatibility, physical performance, antimicrobial efficacy), the ground truth was based on established laboratory and test standards defined for each specific test (e.g., ASTM standards for physical tests, ISO standards for biocompatibility, specific microbiological testing protocols).

8. The sample size for the training set

This question is not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not a machine learning model, so there is no concept of a "training set."

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

This question is not applicable for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device