Search Results

Imaging of:

• The Whole Body (including head, abdomen, pelvis, limbs and extremities, spine, . neck, TMJ, heart, blood vessels). [Application terms include MRCP (MR Cholanqiopancreatography), MR Cisternography, MR Urography, MR Myelography, MR Fluoroscopy, SAS (Surface Anatomy Scan), Dynamic Scan,Cine Imaging and Cardiac tagging.]
• Fluid Visualization .
• 2D / 3D Imaging ●
• MR Angiography / MR Vascular Imaging .
• . Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent (BOLD) imaging
• Perfusion / Diffusion Imaging .
• Proton Spectroscopy .

The EXCELART Vantage™ XGV/AGV system has the following features compared to the current EXCELART™ with Pianissimo XG/AG SPIN Edition system.

• New gantry design as Ultra-short bore. .
• . New patient couch design as wide couch top.
• It is possible to combine detachable couch top and gurney of exclusive use. .
• . The CPU of computer system was changed from RISC type to Xeon.
• . dB/dt enabled use by 1st operating mode specified in IEC 60601-2-33(2002) by some sequences.
• . SAR enabled use by normal operating mode specified in IEC 60601-2-33(2002).
• The marginal performance (Min.TR/Min.TE / Min.Slice thickness / Imaging area) of a . sequence has been improved.
• The gating waveform can be displayed by the side of the gantry. .

This document describes a 510(k) submission for the EXCELART Vantage™ XGV/AGV MRI system. The submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the EXCELART™ with Pianissimo XG/AG SPIN Edition.

Here's an analysis of the provided information concerning acceptance criteria and device performance:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission primarily focuses on comparing the safety and imaging performance parameters of the new device to its predicate. The acceptance criteria essentially align with maintaining or improving upon the predicate device's specifications, particularly within regulated safety limits.

Notes on the table:

• Acoustic Noise: The new device reports a higher acoustic noise (110 dB) compared to the predicate (95.4 dB). While this is a change, it's presented within the context of substantial equivalence, implying it still meets regulatory limits or is otherwise deemed acceptable. MRI systems can have varying acoustic noise levels depending on gradient strength, pulse sequences, and patient comfort features.
• Maximum SAR: The new device allows for a higher maximum SAR (< 2.0 W/kg) compared to the predicate (< 1.5 W/kg). This is explicitly stated as being in compliance with IEC 60601-2-33 (2002).
• Maximum dB/dt: The new device specifies "<1st operating mode specified in IEC 60601-2-33 (2002)," indicating compliance with international safety standards, which may differ from the numerical value of the predicate.
• Gradient coil dimensions: The dimensions have changed, which is expected with a "short bore" magnet system. This is a design change rather than a performance criterion for acceptance.
• Imaging Performance: The document explicitly states "No changes from the previous submission, K023511," for imaging performance, implying that the new device's imaging capabilities are at least equivalent to the predicate.

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

The document does not provide details on a specific test set, its sample size, or data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) for evaluating the device's clinical performance. This is because the submission is for an MRI system, not a diagnostic algorithm or a device that directly measures a clinical outcome through data analysis. The "study" here refers to the engineering and regulatory review demonstrating that the new MRI system meets safety and performance specifications relative to its predicate.

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

Not applicable. As noted above, this submission is for an MRI system, and does not involve clinical data analysis requiring expert-established ground truth for a test set. The "ground truth" for the device's technical performance is established through engineering specifications, international safety standards (like IEC 60601-2-33), and comparison to the predicate device's cleared specifications.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable, as there is no mention of a test set requiring adjudication in this 510(k) summary.

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 document pertains to an MRI scanner system, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, MRMC studies evaluating human reader performance with or without AI assistance are not relevant to this submission.

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

Not applicable. This is not for a standalone algorithm.

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

The ground truth for the performance evaluation in this 510(k) submission is primarily based on:

• Engineering Specifications: Adherence to defined technical parameters (e.g., field strength, gradient coil characteristics).
• International Safety Standards: Compliance with standards like IEC 60601-2-33 (2002) for SAR and dB/dt limitations.
• Predicate Device Equivalence: The performance and safety characteristics of the new device are measured against the legally marketed and cleared predicate device (K023511).

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This submission concerns hardware and software modifications to an MRI system, not a machine learning model, so there is no "training set."

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

Not applicable. As there is no training set for a machine learning model, there is no ground truth established for one.

Ask a specific question about this device