Search Results

The VasCon Roamer Microcatheters are indicated for the selective infusion of various diagnostic, therapeutic, and embolic agents into the peripheral, coronary, and neurovasculature.

The VasCon Roamer Microcatheters are single lumen catheters, incorporating a Pebax body reinforced with stainless steel and platinum wire, a PTFE lubricious inner lumen, and a soft radiopaque tip to reduce potential vessel injury. They are available in French sizes of 2.3/1.9, 2.8/2.3, 3.0/2.8, 2.4/2.0, and 2.8/2.7 and in lengths of 105 cm, 135 cm, and 150 cm. The inside diameters are 0.017, 0.019, 0.021, and 0.027 inches. They have a hydrophilic coating to provide lubricity during use.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the VasCon Roamer Microcatheter, a medical device. This document is a premarket notification for a medical device and does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that a device meets acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/ML powered device.

The text focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on technological characteristics and laboratory testing to assure compliance to specifications and biocompatibility. There is no mention of an AI or ML component, therefore, the specific questions related to AI/ML device performance (sample sizes for test/training sets, expert ground truth adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, etc.) are not applicable to this document.

However, I can extract information regarding the device's summary and the testing performed to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness based on the provided text.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted:

• Device Name: VasCon Roamer Microcatheter
• Intended Use: The VasCon Roamer Microcatheters are indicated for the selective infusion of various diagnostic, therapeutic, and embolic agents into the peripheral, coronary, and neurovasculature.
• Predicate Device: Cordis Catheters (MassTransit®, Prowler® Plus, and the Prowler® 14)
• Summary of Technological Characteristics: Single lumen catheters, incorporating a Pebax body reinforced with stainless steel and platinum wire, a PTFE lubricious inner lumen, and a soft radiopaque tip to reduce potential vessel injury. Available in various French sizes and lengths. Hydrophilic coating for lubricity.
• Testing Summary: "Laboratory testing has been performed on the VasCon Roamer Microcatheter to assure compliance to the specifications. In addition, laboratory testing has been performed on the materials to assure biocompatibility."
• Conclusions: "The testing as discussed above demonstrates that, like the predicate devices, the VasCon Roamer Microcatheters are safe and effective for its intended use."

Since the request is specifically for elements related to acceptance criteria and a study proving device meets acceptance criteria in the context of AI/ML, and this document does not refer to an AI/ML device, I cannot directly answer most of the questions.

However, if we interpret "acceptance criteria" and "study" in a general medical device context (not AI/ML specific), this is what the document implies:

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

2. Sample sized 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 states "laboratory testing has been performed" but does not specify sample sizes for these tests, the type of data, or its provenance.

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)

• Not Applicable (No AI/ML): This question is relevant for AI/ML device validation involving expert review. This medical device documentation does not mention such a process.

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

• Not Applicable (No AI/ML): This is for AI/ML ground truth establishment by experts.

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 (No AI/ML): This is for AI/ML device performance evaluation in collaboration with humans.

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

• Not Applicable (No AI/ML): This question relates to AI/ML algorithm-only performance.

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

• Not Applicable (No AI/ML): Ground truth for this type of device would likely be derived from physical measurements against design specifications and material safety standards through laboratory bench testing, rather than clinical "ground truth" as described (e.g., pathology).

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable (No AI/ML): No training set as there is no AI/ML component.

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

• Not Applicable (No AI/ML): No training set as there is no AI/ML component.

In summary, the provided 510(k) summary describes a traditional medical device (a microcatheter) and its path to market based on substantial equivalence and non-AI/ML related laboratory testing. It does not provide the detailed information requested for an AI/ML powered device.

Ask a specific question about this device