Search Results

The BridgePoint Medical System (consisting of the CrossBoss™ Catheter, Stingray™ Orienting Balloon Catheter, and Stingray™ Guidewire) is intended to facilitate the intraluminal placement of conventional guidewires beyond stenotic coronary lesions (including chronic total occlusions) prior to PTCA or stent intervention.

The CrossBoss Catheter is a single use over the wire disposable percutaneous catheter consisting of a full length coiled stainless steel shaft with polyester and polyurethane exterior. The coiled shaft provides torque and makes it possible to push the device, and also provides a guidewire lumen. The distal shaft transitions to an enlarged (1mm diameter) rounded distal tip. This stainless steel tip provides an atraumatic element that is intended to enhance the catheter's ability to move within the vasculature with reduced risk of arterial tissue engagement while providing radiopaque visibility. The distal portion of the CrossBoss Catheter is hydrophilic coated to enhance lubricity. The proximal portion includes an internal stainless steel hypotube stiffener that provides additional push. A torque device, coaxially positioned over the proximal portion of the CrossBoss Catheter, provides a comfortable user interface for device manipulation. The torque device (similar to a guidewire torque device) is positionable along the proximal portion of the catheter and includes a torsion release safety mechanism. This safety mechanism insures the torque input generated by the user remains within the torsional operating strength of the catheter shaft.

The Stingray Orienting Balloon Catheter is a single use, over-the-wire, disposable, dual lumen percutaneous catheter that facilitates the placement, support and steering of a guidewire into discrete regions of the coronary and peripheral vasculature through the central guidewire lumen or through one of two side-ports (identified by radiopaque markers). The side-ports connect with the central guidewire lumen and facilitate guidewire steering (at an angle to the central lumen) by allowing the guidewire to exit the catheter. The catheter contains a small non-compliant balloon segment used for fluoroscopic orientation on the distal tip of the flexible shaft.

The Stingray Guidewire is a conventionally constructed 0.014" diameter, single use, disposable guidewire that consists of a full-length stainless steel shaft with proximal PTFE coating where the distal portion of the shaft is taper ground to provide distal flexibility. The distal portion also includes a coaxially positioned coil constructed of platinum/tungsten material for visibility under fluoroscopy. The coil is fixed to the stainless steel core wire via silver alloy solder and is coated with hydrophilic coating. The distal tip of the guidewire is supplied with an angled geometry which transitions to a conventional rounded tip. The core wire (~0.0035" diameter) extends approximately 0.007" distal of the rounded tip.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the BridgePoint Medical System. It describes the device, its intended use, and compares it to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence. However, this document does not contain acceptance criteria for device performance or a study proving that the device meets specific performance criteria in the way typically associated with AI/ML-driven medical devices.

Instead, the submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices based on identical designs, prior bench testing, and biocompatibility tests. It briefly mentions a clinical study to support the system's function, but this study is not presented with acceptance criteria or detailed results in the context of device performance metrics.

Therefore, many of the requested items (e.g., specific acceptance criteria, sample size for test sets directly related to acceptance criteria, ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, standalone performance) are not present in this type of regulatory submission.

Here's a breakdown of the information that can be extracted or inferred from the provided text, and what is not available:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

This information is not provided in the document. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, asserting that the prior bench testing and biocompatibility of the identical predicate devices are directly applicable. There are no explicit performance acceptance criteria (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, or specific mechanical thresholds) outlined as part of this particular submission for the BridgePoint Medical System.

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

• Test Set (Clinical Study):
  • Sample Size: A "147 patient study" was conducted.
  • Data Provenance: "in the United States."
  • Retrospective or Prospective: Not explicitly stated, but clinical studies for regulatory submissions are typically prospective.

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

This information is not provided. The document states the clinical study "demonstrated the BridgePoint Medical System could successfully allow the placement of guidewires beyond chronic total occlusions with no significant increase in risk to the patient." It does not detail how the success or risk was formally adjudicated or who the experts were.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

This information is not provided.

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

This information is not provided and is highly unlikely to be applicable to this type of device (catheters and guidewires), which are not typically "AI-assisted reader" devices. The device described is a physical medical instrument, not a diagnostic imaging AI algorithm.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study:

This information is not applicable/provided. The device is a physical catheter system used by a human interventionalist, not an algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

• For the 147-patient study: The "ground truth" or primary outcome likely relates to the successful intraluminal placement of conventional guidewires beyond stenotic coronary lesions (including chronic total occlusions) and patient safety/risk assessment as determined by clinical observation and physician assessment during the procedure. The document states the study "demonstrated the BridgePoint Medical System could successfully allow the placement of guidewires beyond chronic total occlusions with no significant increase in risk to the patient." This implies clinical outcomes and expert judgment as the ground truth.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

This information is not provided and is not applicable in the context of this device. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML model that requires a "training set."

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

This information is not provided and is not applicable as there is no "training set" for this device.

Summary of what the document does state regarding the study:

• Study Purpose: To demonstrate that the BridgePoint Medical System functions "to enhance medical practice in facilitating the placement of guidewires or other interventional devices beyond chronic total occlusions."
• Study Outcome: The "147 patient study... demonstrated the BridgePoint Medical System could successfully allow the placement of guidewires beyond chronic total occlusions with no significant increase in risk to the patient."
• Context: This study appears to be part of the justification for substantial equivalence, implying that the clinical performance observed was comparable or superior to predicate devices without introducing new safety concerns.

In conclusion, this 510(k) summary focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of a physical medical device to existing predicate devices based on design, prior bench testing, and biocompatibility, supported by a general statement about a clinical study's positive outcome. It does not provide the detailed performance acceptance criteria or granular study details typically requested for AI/ML device evaluations.

Ask a specific question about this device

The BridgePoint Medical Stingray™ Orienting Balloon Catheter is indicated for directing, steering, controlling, and supporting a guidewire in order to access discrete regions of the coronary and peripheral vasculature

The Stingray Orienting Balloon Catheter is a single use, over-the-wire, disposable, dual lumen percutaneous catheter that facilitates the placement, support and steering of a guidewire into discrete regions of the coronary and peripheral vasculature through the central guidewire lumen or through one of two side-ports (identified by radiopaque markers). The side-ports connect with the central guidewire lumen and facilitate guidewire steering (at an angle to the central lumen) by allowing the guidewire to exit the catheter. The catheter contains a small non-compliant balloon segment used for fluoroscopic orientation on the distal tip of the flexible shaft.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called the Stingray™ Orienting Balloon Catheter. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria through a clinical study with detailed performance metrics.

Therefore, the document does not contain information about acceptance criteria, a standalone study to prove device performance against those criteria, or details related to human reader performance with/without AI assistance. The evaluations described are primarily engineering/bench tests demonstrating that changes to the device (balloon material, manifold adhesive, wire lumen) do not alter its performance from the predicate device.

Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text, highlighting what is present and what is absent:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

This information is not provided in the document in the format of specific acceptance criteria values and reported performance values. The submission instead lists a series of design evaluations that were conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence to the predicate device. These are engineering/bench tests, not clinical performance metrics. The document states "has demonstrated substantially equivalent performance characteristics as compared to the predicate Stingray™ Orienting Balloon," implying the device met internal specifications for these tests, but the specific numerical acceptance criteria and outcomes are not detailed for public consumption in this summary.

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

This information is not present in the document. The document describes engineering and biocompatibility evaluations, not a clinical test set with human or observational data.

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 present in the document. The evaluations described are bench tests and biocompatibility tests, not studies requiring expert ground truth establishment in a clinical context.

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

This information is not present in the document. Adjudication methods are typically relevant for clinical studies or studies using human interpretation, which is not the type of evaluation described.

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 present in the document. MRMC studies and AI assistance are not relevant to this device or its 510(k) submission, which predates widespread AI in medical devices (2010). The device is a physical catheter, not an AI diagnostic tool.

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

This information is not present in the document. This concept is not applicable to a physical medical device like a catheter.

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

This information is not present in the document. The evaluations described are primarily laboratory/bench tests and biocompatibility assessments, where "ground truth" would relate to meeting predefined engineering specifications and international standards for material safety, rather than clinical outcomes or expert consensus on medical images/diagnoses.

8. The sample size for the training set

This information is not present in the document. This concept is entirely irrelevant to the type of device and submission (physical catheter, 510(k)).

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

This information is not present in the document. This concept is entirely irrelevant to the type of device and submission.

Ask a specific question about this device