Search Results

The Diamondback 360 Peripheral Orbital Atherectomy System is a percutaneous orbital atherectomy system indicated for use as therapy in patients with occlusive atherosclerotic disease in peripheral arteries and who are acceptable candidates for percutaneous transluminal atherectomy.

The OAS supports removal of stenotic material from artificial arteriovenous dialysis fistulae (AV shunt). The OAS is a percutaneous orbital atherectomy system indicated as a therapy in patients with occluded hemodialysis grafts who are acceptable candidates for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty.

The Diamondback 360 Peripheral Orbital Atherectomy System (OAS) is intended for use in the treatment of peripheral arteries and A-V graft (shunt) stenosis.

The OAS provides a method of removing stenotic material from peripheral arteries and A-V grafts. The Diamondback 360 uses an eccentrically rotating sanding surface (crown) to remove stenotic material on the vessel wall. The stenotic particles that are removed are small enough to be absorbed by the body.

The Diamondback 360 Peripheral Orbital Atherectomy System consists of the following components:

• 1. Orbital Atherectomy Device (OAD)
• 2. Atherectomy Guide Wire (e.g., ViperWire Advance)
• 3. Saline Infusion Pump (SIP)
• 4. Atherectomy Lubricant (e.g., ViperSlide)

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the Diamondback 360® Peripheral Orbital Atherectomy System. This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices, rather than establishing acceptance criteria and providing detailed study results for a novel AI/software product. Therefore, much of the requested information regarding AI device performance metrics, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and ground truth establishment is not present in the given text.

However, I can extract the available information regarding performance testing and conclusions:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Sample Size: Not specified in the provided text. The testing appears to be primarily bench testing of the device's physical and functional characteristics, not clinical data or image-based test sets.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of an AI device. The data for this medical device submission is from laboratory bench testing.

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

• Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this type of device's performance is established by meeting predefined engineering specifications and regulatory standards through bench testing. There's no mention of clinical experts establishing ground truth in this context.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/software device that requires human adjudication of outputs.

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 is not an AI device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI device. It's a physical atherectomy system.

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

• For this device, the "ground truth" or acceptability criteria are based on engineering specifications, industry standards (e.g., ISO 10993 for biocompatibility), and regulatory requirements. It's demonstrated through successful completion of bench tests.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is not an AI device, so there is no "training set."

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

• Not applicable. There is no training set for this device.

Ask a specific question about this device