Search Results

Sulzer Vascutek ePTFE grafts are intended for the creation of subcutaneous arteriovenous conduits for blood access, bypass, or reconstruction of occluded or diseased arterial blood vessels.

The device is composed of polytetrafluoroethylene, which has been fabricated in tubular form and expanded to impart porosity to the structure.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the Sulzer Vascutek ePTFE Vascular Prosthesis, asserting its substantial equivalence to an existing device rather than presenting a study to prove its inherent performance against specific acceptance criteria. Therefore, most of the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study design, and ground truth cannot be extracted directly from this document.

However, I can extract the information that is present and indicate what is not available.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample size for test set: Not explicitly stated. The document refers to "in vitro testing," "animal studies," and "biomaterial testing" without specifying the number of grafts or animals used in each.
• Data provenance: Not explicitly stated. The testing was conducted by Sulzer Vascutek Inc. or on their behalf, but the location or whether the data was retrospective or prospective is not mentioned.

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

• Not applicable. The document describes engineering and biological testing against a predicate device, not a diagnostic device requiring expert interpretation for ground truth.

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

• Not applicable. The methods described are laboratory and animal testing, not human expert adjudication.

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/diagnostic device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/diagnostic device.

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

• The "ground truth" here is the performance of the predicate device (Impra commercial grafts and Impra standard wall grafts) as established through:
  • In vitro measurements: For evaluating mechanical properties and overall equivalence.
  • Animal study results: For assessing in-vivo equivalence.
  • Biomaterial test standards: For biocompatibility and non-toxicity.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not a machine learning or AI device.

Summary of what the document indicates instead:

This 510(k) submission primarily relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to an already legally marketed predicate device (Impra's ePTFE vascular grafts) rather than proving performance against independent acceptance criteria. The "study" mentioned involves various forms of testing (in vitro, animal, biomaterial) to compare the Sulzer Vascutek ePTFE grafts to the predicate device. The goal is to show that the new device performs similarly and is as safe and effective as the predicate.

Ask a specific question about this device