Search Results

1. The TVC™ Imaging System is intended for the near-infrared examination of coronary arteries in patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography.
   a. The System is intended for the detection of lipid-core-containing plaques of interest.
   b. The System is intended for the assessment of coronary artery lipid core burden.
2. The System is intended for ultrasound examination of coronary intravascular pathology.
   a. Intravascular ultrasound imaging is indicated in patients who are candidates for transluminal coronary interventional procedures.

Not Found

This FDA letter is a 510(k) clearance for the TVC Imaging System, meaning it has been determined to be substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device. While it indicates the device can be legally marketed, it does not typically contain the detailed study information needed to fully answer your questions about acceptance criteria and study proving device performance. Such information is usually found in the 510(k) submission itself (which includes the scientific data and clinical studies), rather than in the clearance letter.

Therefore, based solely on the provided text, I can only provide limited information. Many of your questions, particularly those about specific performance metrics, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, and expert qualifications, cannot be answered from this document.

Here's what can be extracted:

• Device Name: TVC™ Imaging System
• Intended Use (Indications for Use):
  • Near-infrared examination of coronary arteries in patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography for:
    • Detection of lipid-core-containing plaques.
    • Assessment of coronary artery lipid core burden.
  • Ultrasound examination of coronary intravascular pathology in patients who are candidates for transluminal coronary interventional procedures.

Regarding your specific questions and what can/cannot be answered from the provided text:

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

   • Cannot be provided. The clearance letter does not include specific performance metrics or acceptance criteria from the underlying studies. This information would be in the 510(k) submission.

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

   • Cannot be provided. The clearance letter does not detail the clinical studies, including sample sizes, data provenance, or study design (retrospective/prospective). This would be in the 510(k) submission.

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):

   • Cannot be provided. The clearance letter does not describe how ground truth was established or the details of expert involvement. This would be in the 510(k) submission.

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

   • Cannot be provided. The clearance letter does not describe adjudication methods. This would be in the 510(k) submission.

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:

   • Cannot be provided. The clearance letter does not mention if an MRMC study was performed or any human-AI comparative effectiveness. The device's primary function as described (NIRS and IVUS imaging) doesn't inherently suggest an AI-assisted interpretation component for human readers in the way an AI diagnostic algorithm might.

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

   • Likely applicable, but details not provided. The description focuses on the system intended for examination and assessment. For a diagnostic imaging system, the "standalone" performance would typically refer to its ability to generate images and measurements for the intended use, which would have been demonstrated in the submission. However, specific standalone performance metrics or the nature of an "algorithm only" test are not detailed in this letter.

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

   • Cannot be provided. The clearance letter does not specify the type of ground truth used in the studies. This would be in the 510(k) submission.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Cannot be provided. As this is a 510(k) clearance for an imaging system (NIRS and IVUS), the concept of a "training set" in the context of machine learning (like an AI algorithm) may not be directly applicable in the same way, unless the device incorporates such algorithms. Even if it does, the sample size would not be in this clearance letter.

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

   • Cannot be provided. (See point 8).

In summary: The provided document is an FDA clearance letter confirming substantial equivalence. It does not contain the detailed technical and clinical study results that would typically include acceptance criteria, performance metrics, sample sizes, ground truth methodologies, or expert qualifications. To obtain this information, you would need to access the full 510(k) submission (K123108) itself, which is often available through the FDA's public database.

Ask a specific question about this device