Search Results

The Sterling ES Monorail and Over-the-Wire PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheters are indicated for Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty (PTA) in the peripheral vasculature, including iliac, femoral, ilio-femoral, popliteal, infra-popliteal and renal arteries, and for the treatment of obstructive lesions of native or synthetic arteriovenous dialysis fistulae. The 2.00 mm - 4.00 mm balloon devices are also indicated for post-dilatation of balloon expandable and self-expanding stents in the peripheral vasculature.

The Sterling ES PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheters consist of a Monorail and an Over-The-Wire catheter designs with a semi-compliant balloon fixed at the distal tip. The balloon catheter has a coaxial shaft design. The outer lumen is used for inflation of the wire lumen permits the use of 0.014" guidewires to facilitate advancement of the catheter to and through the stenosis to be dilated. The balloon is designed to provide an inflatable segment of known diameter and length at recommended pressures. Two radiopaque marker bands (one proximal and one distal), in conjunction with fluoroscopy, enable accurate positioning of the balloon. The working lengths of the balloon catheters are approximately 143 cm.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the Sterling™ ES MR and OTW PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheters:

Summary of Device and Performance Information:

The Sterling™ ES MR and OTW PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheters are Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty (PTA) catheters indicated for use in the peripheral vasculature and for treating obstructive lesions in arteriovenous dialysis fistulae. Smaller balloon sizes (2.00 mm - 4.00 mm) are also indicated for post-dilatation of stents. The device is a modification of a previously cleared device (K080982).

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Unfortunately, the provided text does not explicitly state specific acceptance criteria or quantitative performance metrics for the Sterling™ ES MR and OTW PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheters.

The document mentions: "The safety and effectiveness of the modified Sterling ES MR and OTW PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter is demonstrated with design control activities and bench testing on file at Boston Scientific."

This statement indicates that performance was assessed, but the details of what was measured, how well it performed, and what standards it had to meet are not included in the provided 510(k) summary and FDA letter.

Based on the available information, a table cannot be constructed with specific acceptance criteria and reported device performance.

Regarding the other requested information:

While the document confirms a study was done ("bench testing on file at Boston Scientific"), it does not provide any of the detailed information requested for points 2 through 9.

Here's why and what's missing:

• No Clinical Study Details: The provided text explicitly states "bench testing" and "design control activities" were used to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. This indicates that a clinical study (involving human subjects) was likely not the primary method for demonstrating substantial equivalence for this particular modification, at least not in the context of this 510(k) summary. If a clinical study were performed, details like sample size, data provenance, ground truth establishment, etc., would be crucial.

• Focus on Substantial Equivalence: The 510(k) submission process primarily focuses on demonstrating "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device. For modifications to existing devices, this often relies heavily on bench testing and comparisons of materials, design, and manufacturing processes, rather than extensive new clinical trials, unless the modification significantly alters safety or effectiveness.

Therefore, for aspects 2-9, the answer is that the information is not provided in the given text.

Detailed breakdown of missing information for points 2-9:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
* Information Not Provided. The document only refers to "bench testing." Details on sample size or data provenance for such testing are not given.

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)
* Information Not Provided. This type of information would typically be relevant for studies involving image interpretation or clinical outcomes, which is not described here.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
* Information Not Provided. This applies to clinical studies with expert reviewers, which is not detailed.

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
* Information Not Provided. This device is a physical medical device (catheter), not an AI-powered diagnostic or interpretive tool. An MRMC study is not applicable.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done
* Information Not Provided. As noted, this is a physical device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)
* Information Not Provided. For physical device bench testing, "ground truth" would typically refer to known physical properties or specified performance parameters measured against accepted standards (e.g., burst pressure, inflation time, guidewire compatibility). The document does not specify these.

8. The sample size for the training set
* Information Not Provided. No training set for an algorithm is mentioned or implied.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
* Information Not Provided. No training set is mentioned.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Sterling ES MR and OTW PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheters are indicated for Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty (PTA) in the peripheral vasculature, including iliac, femoral, iliofemoral, popliteal, infrapopliteal and renal arteries, and for the treatment of obstructive lesions of native or synthetic arteriovenous dialysis fistulae.

The 2.00 mm - 4.00 mm balloon devices are also indicated for post-dilatation of balloon expandable and self-expanding stents in the peripheral vasculature.

The Sterling ES PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheters consist of a Monorail and an Over-The-Wire catheter with a semi-compliant balloon fixed at the distal tip. The balloon catheter has a coaxial shaft design. The outer lumen is used for inflation of the balloon, and the wire lumen permits the use of 0.014 in (0.39 mm) guide wires to facilitate advancement of the catheter to and through the stenosis to be dilated. The balloon is designed to provide an inflatable segment of known diameter and length at recommended pressures.

Two radiopaque marker bands (one proximal and one distal), in conjunction with fluoroscopy, enable accurate positioning of the balloon. The working lengths of the balloon catheters are 143 cm.

This document describes the 510(k) summary for the Sterling ES MR and OTW PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheters. It's important to note that this is a submission for a medical device (a physical product), not an AI/software device. Therefore, many of the typical AI/software acceptance criteria and study components you've requested (like MRMC studies, ground truth establishment for algorithms, training sets, and expert adjudication of AI performance) are not applicable to this type of device.

This submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through bench testing and biocompatibility.

Here's an attempt to fill in the requested information based on the provided text, with clarifications where the concepts are not applicable:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

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

   • Sample size: Not explicitly stated. For a physical device, "test set" would refer to the number of devices or components tested during bench testing. This information is typically detailed in the full 510(k) submission, not the summary.
   • Data Provenance: The testing was "bench testing" and "biocompatibility testing." This implies laboratory testing on physical device samples, not patient data from a specific country. It's prospective in the sense that the testing was performed on the device candidates to support the submission.

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

   • Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device. "Ground truth" in the context of AI/software devices typically refers to the confirmed diagnosis or measurement used to evaluate an algorithm's performance. For a balloon catheter, "ground truth" might loosely refer to validated measurements of its physical properties against specifications, but this isn't established by external "experts" in the clinical diagnostic sense. The device's performance is measured against engineering specifications and predicate device performance.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

   • Not Applicable. Adjudication methods (like 2+1, 3+1) are for resolving discrepancies in expert interpretations of medical data (e.g., images for AI performance evaluation). For a physical device, performance is typically measured against objective criteria and specifications established during design and verified during testing.

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 is a physical medical device, not an AI/software product. MRMC studies are used to evaluate diagnostic performance of imaging systems or AI algorithms with human readers.

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

   • Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm or software. There is no "standalone" algorithm performance to evaluate.

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

   • Not Applicable (in the AI/clinical sense). For this device, the "ground truth" is implied to be engineering specifications, validated test methods for mechanical properties (e.g., burst pressure, balloon diameter at pressure), and established biocompatibility standards. The predicate device's performance also serves as a benchmark for "ground truth" performance expectations.

8. The sample size for the training set

   • Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device. There is no "training set" in the context of machine learning. The "training" for such a device is its design and manufacturing process, optimized through engineering principles.

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

   • Not Applicable. As there is no training set for an AI/software device, this question is not relevant.

Ask a specific question about this device