Search Results

The TrapLiner catheter is intended for use in conjunction with guide catheters to access discrete regions of the coronary and/or peripheral vasculature, to facilitate placement of interventional devices, and to facilitate the exchange of an interventional device while maintaining the position of a guidewire within the vasculature.

The TrapLiner catheter is a rapid-exchange guide extension catheter with a trapping balloon on the distal end of the pushrod. The stainless steel pushrod is covered on the distal end by a semi-circular polymer ('half-pipe') and transitions to a hydrophilic coated full-round polymer guide extension section. There are two radiopaque marker bands on the guide extension segment, one on the distal tip and one on the collar. The trapping balloon is located proximal to the half-pipe and has a single radiopaque gold marker under the proximal end of the balloon.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML medical device.

The document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device called the "TrapLiner catheter." This device is a physical catheter used in interventional procedures, not an AI/ML algorithm.

The core of the document discusses:

• The FDA's determination of substantial equivalence to a predicate device.
• The intended use of the catheter.
• A comparison of technological characteristics with a predicate device, noting a "geometry improvement at the distal end of the pushrod."
• Bench tests conducted to evaluate this design change (e.g., Track Force, Guide Catheter Backup Support, Balloon Fatigue, etc.).

There is no mention of:

• Acceptance criteria for an AI/ML algorithm's performance (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, AUC).
• A sample size for a test set or training set for an AI/ML model.
• Data provenance, expert ground truth establishment, or adjudication methods for an AI/ML model.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies related to AI assistance.
• Standalone performance of an AI algorithm.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves an AI/ML device meets them based on the provided text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The TrapLiner catheter is intended for use in conjunction with guide catheters to access discrete regions of the coronary and/or peripheral vasculature, to facilitate placement of interventional devices, and to facilitate the exchange of an interventional device while maintaining the position of a guidewire within the vasculature.

The TrapLiner catheter is a rapid-exchange guide extension catheter with a trapping balloon on the distal end of the pushrod. The stainless steel pushrod is covered on the distal end by a semi-circular polymer ("half-pipe') and transitions to a hydrophilic coated full-round polymer guide extension section. There are two radiopaque marker bands on the guide extension segment, one on the distal tip and one on the collar. The trapping balloon is located proximal to the half-pipe and has a single radiopaque gold marker under the proximal end of the balloon.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the TrapLiner Catheter. This document is a regulatory submission for a medical device and, as such, focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices rather than proving a device meets specific clinical performance acceptance criteria through the kind of study described in the prompt.

Therefore, many of the requested elements (like sample sizes for test sets, number of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and ground truth for training sets) are not applicable or not available in this type of regulatory submission. The submission centers on verification testing against engineering specifications and biocompatibility standards to demonstrate that the new device performs similarly and safely to already approved devices.

Here's the information that can be extracted or inferred from the provided text, alongside explanations for the N/A sections:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document broadly states that "The results of the verification tests met the specified acceptance criteria and did not raise new safety or performance issues." However, specific numerical acceptance criteria (e.g., "Kink Resistance shall be > X Newtons") and precise reported performance values (e.g., "Kink Resistance was Y Newtons") are not detailed in this summary. The document lists the types of tests performed:

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified in the provided summary. These are typically engineering or lab tests, not clinical studies with patients. Sample sizes would refer to the number of device units tested for each specific verification test.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated as "country of origin" for data. The tests are laboratory-based and include an "In Vivo Efficacy" test, which implies animal or cadaveric testing, but the specifics are not provided. The overall submission originates from Vascular Solutions, Inc. in Minneapolis, MN, USA.
• Retrospective or Prospective: Not applicable in the context of device verification testing for a 510(k) submission.

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

• Not applicable. The "ground truth" for these engineering and biocompatibility tests is based on established scientific principles, industry standards (e.g., ISO 10993-1), and pre-defined acceptance criteria, not expert clinical consensus on patient data.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not applicable. This refers to clinical data review, not engineering test results. Compliance with pre-defined pass/fail criteria is the "adjudication" method.

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 a physical medical device (catheter), not an AI-powered diagnostic or imaging device. Therefore, MRMC studies and AI-assisted performance metrics are irrelevant.

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

• Not applicable. As above, this is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

• For the engineering and mechanical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by pre-specified engineering specifications and performance standards.
• For biocompatibility tests, the "ground truth" is established by adherence to international standards like ISO 10993-1.
• The "In Vivo Efficacy" test's ground truth would have been established by its specific protocol, likely measuring device function in a simulated biological environment, but the details are not provided.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, and the concept of "training set" is relevant to machine learning algorithms, not to the verification and validation of a catheter.

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

• Not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device