Search Results

The intended use of the VENTRi system is to perform nuclear imaging procedures for detection and imaging of radioisotope tracer uptake in the patient body for clinical diagnostic purposes. VENTRi is primarily intended for cardiac applications but also supports non-cardiac procedures of the patient's head, chest and body extremities.

The VENTRi is a high-performance dual-head Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography system dedicated mainly for nuclear cardiology imaging.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain detailed acceptance criteria or a comprehensive study report that proves the device meets specific performance criteria.

The document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device (VENTRi, a Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography system). It primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing a detailed performance study with explicit acceptance criteria.

Here's what I can extract and what's missing based on your request:

Missing Information:

The document does not contain any of the following requested information:

• A specific table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
• Sample size used for a test set or its provenance.
• Number of experts, their qualifications, or the adjudication method for ground truth establishment.
• Information on Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies or effect sizes.
• Details about standalone (algorithm-only) performance.
• The type of ground truth used (e.g., pathology, outcomes data).
• Sample size for the training set.
• How ground truth for the training set was established.

What can be inferred/extracted:

The "Summary of Studies" section (page 2, {1}) states:
"Bench and images data show that the VENTRi images are similar to the images of The predicate devices."

This broadly suggests that the implicit acceptance criterion was that the VENTRi system's image quality and performance should be "similar" or equivalent to the legally marketed predicate devices. However, no specific metrics, quantitative comparisons, or a detailed study methodology are provided to elaborate on this "similarity."

The document focuses on the description of changes or modifications to the predicate devices and asserts the substantial equivalence of the VENTRi system based on these changes and general "bench and images data." It does not present a performance study with the level of detail requested for acceptance criteria and proof of meeting those criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device