Search Results

Intended to facilitate the placement and exchange of diagnostic devices during intravascular procedures. This device is intended for peripheral vascular use only.

The VASSALLO GT Hybrid consists of a hybrid NiTi and stainless-steel core wire and a coil assembly on the distal end of the device. The coil assembly is soldered to the NiTi portion of the core. The coil is radiopaque to facilitate selection of the blood vessel and confirmation of the position of the guide wire's distal end by fluoroscopy. Coatings are applied on the surface of the VASSALLO GT Hybrid to increase lubricity and reduce friction. The proximal portion is coated with PTFE. The distal section is coated with a hydrophilic coating and polyurethane coating. The VASSALLO GT Hybrid has an outer diameter of 0.014 inches (0.36mm) and is available in 190cm and 300cm lengths. About 2cm of the distal end can be shaped. A detachable extension wire (hereafter "extension wire") is available to connect with the proximal end of the guide wire with a length of less than 300 cm. A Torque device is included in the same package.

This document describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the VASSALLO GT Hybrid, a catheter guide wire, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices. However, it does not contain any information about acceptance criteria, device performance described by specific metrics (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity), nor details of any study demonstrating this performance. It's a regulatory submission affirming substantial equivalence based on technical characteristics and bench testing against predicate devices, not a clinical performance validation against specific acceptance criteria for a diagnostic AI/ML device.

Therefore, I cannot provide the detailed information requested in the prompt based on the provided text, as it pertains to a different type of medical device submission (a guide wire, not a diagnostic AI/ML device) and does not include the specific performance metrics or study information requested.

Here's a breakdown of what can be inferred from the document regarding the closest analogous information, and what is explicitly missing for your request:

What can be inferred (closest analogies):

• "Acceptance criteria" and "reported device performance": The document states, "The in vitro bench tests demonstrated that the VASSALLO GT Hybrid met all acceptance criteria and performed similarly to the predicate and reference devices." and "Performance data demonstrate that the device functions as intended and has a safety and effectiveness profile that is similar to the predicate devices." While this confirms tests were performed and criteria met, the actual criteria (e.g., specific tensile strength in Newtons, specific coating adhesion force) and the numerical performance results against those criteria are not provided. The bench tests listed are:
  • Dimensional Verification
  • Visual Inspection
  • Simulated Use
  • Tensile Strength / Tip Pull
  • Torque Strength
  • Torqueability
  • Coating Integrity
  • Coating Adhesion
  • Catheter Compatibility / Lubricity
  • Corrosion Resistance
  • Kink Resistance
  • Tip Flexibility
  • Radiopacity
• "The study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria": This refers to "Non-clinical laboratory testing" and "Biocompatibility testing."
• "Type of ground truth used": For the guide wire, the "ground truth" is typically defined by engineering specifications, material properties, and established medical standards for guide wire performance (e.g., ISO standards for tensile strength, elongation, etc.), as well as in-vitro performance models that simulate use. These are not explicitly detailed but are inherent in the types of non-clinical tests performed.

What is explicitly missing from the provided text for your request (and why):

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: While criteria were met, the specific metrics and values are not given.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable in the context of bench testing for a guide wire in the way it would be for an AI/ML diagnostic. Bench tests typically use a pre-production sample of devices.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable for engineering bench tests. "Ground truth" is based on objective measurements against engineering specifications.
4. Adjudication method for the test set: Not applicable. Bench test results are typically objective measurements.
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 device is a medical instrument, not an AI diagnostic.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This is not an algorithm.
7. The type of ground truth used: As mentioned above, it's engineering specifications and in-vitro performance models, not expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data in the sense of a diagnostic interpretation.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. This device does not use a training set as it's not an AI/ML product.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided text describes a 510(k) submission for a physical medical device (a guide wire), not an AI/ML diagnostic device. The regulatory pathway involves demonstrating substantial equivalence through comparison of technological characteristics and non-clinical bench testing to predicate devices, rather than establishing clinical performance against human expert ground truth using AI-specific metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device