Search Results

The Attain Hybrid guide wire is intended to aid in the placement of Medtronic transvenous left ventricular leads in the coronary vasculature.

A guide wire is a flexible wire of a small diameter that serves as a track for directing or passing a device to a vessel, organ or cavity, by threading the device over its length.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called the "Attain Hybrid Guide Wire." It describes the device, its intended use, and the studies performed to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information, specifically focusing on what is available in the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document broadly states that "The results of the above verification tests met the specified acceptance criteria." However, it does not provide a detailed table outlining specific numerical acceptance criteria for each test and the corresponding reported device performance values. It only lists the types of tests performed.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

The document does not specify the sample sizes used for any of the bench/performance tests or biocompatibility tests. It also does not mention any human clinical test set for this device; the testing is focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence through bench and biocompatibility testing. Therefore, there is no data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) described for a clinical test set.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications:

Since the testing described is primarily bench and biocompatibility testing, there is no "ground truth" established by human experts in the context of clinical interpretation or diagnosis. The ground truth for these tests would be derived from the experimental parameters, validated methods, and material characterization.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

Not applicable, as there is no clinical test set requiring expert adjudication.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:

No. The document describes bench and biocompatibility testing, not a clinical study involving human readers or comparative effectiveness with or without AI assistance. This device is a guide wire, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study:

No. This question is also not applicable. The device is a physical medical instrument, not an algorithm, and therefore does not have "algorithm only" performance.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used:

The ground truth for the studies described would be based on:

• Engineering specifications and standards: For dimensional verification, coating adhesion, tip integrity, deflection force, stiffness, perforation, passage/seal integrity, lubricity, durability, and torque response. These are objective measurements against defined criteria.
• Validated laboratory methods and international standards (e.g., ISO 10993-1): For biocompatibility tests. The "ground truth" here is the adherence to these standards and the established biological responses that indicate safety.
• Validated sterilization and shelf-life protocols: For sterilization validation and shelf life evaluation.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set:

Not applicable. This device is not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set. The substantial equivalence is based on physical and biological testing against a predicate device.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

Not applicable. As established, there is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device