Search Results

The VWING Vascular Needle Guide is indicated for use as an access device accessory on arteriovenous fistulas (AVF) for hemodialysis procedures using a constant site or "buttonhole" method of needle insertion.

The VWING vascular needle guide has been designed to facilitate repeated needle access to the vasculature. The VWING vascular needle guide is an accessory for constant site or "buttonhole" method of needle insertion and is indicated for use for patient therapies requiring repeated access to the vascular system. such as hemodialysis. It is a single piece of titanium device that is implanted subcutaneously and attached to the outside of the vasculature, including on arteriovenous fistulae (AVF). The VWING acts as a guide for needles and accommodates currently available 15-17 gage needles to accurately cannulate the targeted vessel.

"The provided text describes the VWING™ Vascular Needle Guide, a medical device designed to facilitate repeated needle access to the vasculature, particularly for hemodialysis patients using the ""buttonhole"" method.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study information as requested:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The document does not explicitly state a table of quantifiable acceptance criteria with numerical targets. Instead, it describes a series of tests and their successful completion as evidence of the device meeting safety and effectiveness requirements. The primary ""performance"", as implicitly defined for this device, seems to be its ability to safely and effectively facilitate vascular access for hemodialysis via the buttonhole method, particularly in hard-to-cannulate fistulas, while maintaining acceptable safety outcomes.

Based on the text, the following can be inferred as the "reported device performance" and implied acceptance criteria:

Study Details:

1. Sample Size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Clinical Efficacy/Safety Test Set (SAVE Trial): The text mentions ""examined patients"" for the 96% success rate but does not explicitly state the total number of patients enrolled or evaluated at the 3-month primary endpoint. It is described as a ""prospective, multicenter IDE clinical study.""
   • Data Provenance: The crucial SAVE Trial was a ""multicenter IDE clinical study."" A ""first-in-human clinical evaluation"" was conducted in New Zealand. The animal studies are also a form of prospective test set.

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

   • The document does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth. Clinical trials typically involve medical professionals (e.g., nephrologists, vascular surgeons, nurses) to assess outcomes, but their specific roles in establishing a ""ground truth"" for a device like this (which is more about physical access success and adverse events) are not detailed here. The outcome measures (successful access, adverse events) are generally directly observable and documented by the clinical site investigators.

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • The document does not specify an adjudication method like 2+1 or 3+1. For clinical trials, adverse events are typically reported by site investigators and may be reviewed by an independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) or a Clinical Events Committee (CEC), but the specific mechanism is not detailed.

4. 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:

   • No. This is a physical medical device (a vascular needle guide), not an AI/software device that involves "readers" interpreting images or data. Therefore, an MRMC study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance is not applicable and was not performed.

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

   • Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm. Its performance is always ""standalone"" in the sense that it is a physical component guiding a needle, and its function does not involve human interpretation of algorithm output.

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

   • The ""ground truth"" for the clinical studies (SAVE Trial and New Zealand feasibility study) consisted primarily of outcomes data. This includes:
     • Successful vascular access: Determined by direct observation during hemodialysis sessions.
     • Safety outcomes: Documented adverse events (e.g., sepsis, serious adverse events), their resolution, and impact on fistula integrity, which are direct clinical observations and records.
   • For biocompatibility, sterilization, MR compatibility, the ""ground truth"" is established by meeting the specific objective criteria and thresholds defined in the referenced ISO and ASTM standards.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/machine learning model, so there is no ""training set"" in the computational sense. The device design and verification were based on engineering principles and preclinical testing.

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

   • Not applicable, as there is no training set for a physical device. Design and engineering principles, alongside bench testing, animal models, and initial human feasibility studies, inform its development and refinement."

Ask a specific question about this device