Search Results

The FLASH Ostial System OTW is indicated for Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty in the peripheral vasculature at aorto-ostial locations, including iliac, renal and carotid arteries. This device is also indicated for post-dilatation of balloon expandable stents in the peripheral vasculature.

The Flash Ostial System OTW is designed for the dilatation of stenotic ostial lesions in the peripheral vasculature. The FLASH Ostial System OTW is a 0.035" guidewire-compatible, over the wire (OTW) angioplasty balloon catheter with proximal anchoring and a working length of either 80cm or 135cm. All device sizes in the Flash Ostial System OTW product family are designed to be compatible with 6F guiding sheaths. The FLASH Ostial System OTW uses a dual balloon design that features a compliant proximal balloon, which prevents distal migration of the balloon during angioplasty. The second semi-compliant higher-pressure distal balloon allows for luminal dilatation of de novo lesions and post deployment stent expansion.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and supporting studies for the FLASH Ostial System OTW.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document states that the FLASH Ostial System OTW line extension device sizes were evaluated using a series of in-vitro and performance bench tests. The key acceptance criterion for all these tests was that the device sizes "meet the established product specifications." The conclusion explicitly states: "All test results demonstrate that the FLASH Ostial System OTW line extension device sizes meet the established product specifications."

Since the specific numerical "product specifications" (acceptance criteria) are not detailed in the provided text, and only the fact that they were met is stated, I will list the tests performed and indicate that the reported performance was "Met established product specifications" for each.

Study Details:

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):
   The document mentions "in-vitro and performance bench testing." The sample sizes for these tests are not specified in the provided text for each individual test. The data provenance is from bench testing, meaning it's conducted in a laboratory setting, not with human or animal subjects in a clinical environment. Therefore, it is neither retrospective nor prospective in the clinical sense.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience):
   This section of the report describes bench testing and biocompatibility testing, not a clinical study involving diagnosis or expert review. Therefore, there were no experts used to establish ground truth in the context of clinical interpretation. The "ground truth" for these engineering and biological tests is derived from established scientific methods, standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM), and laboratory protocols, presumably by qualified engineers and scientists.

3. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
   As this is bench testing and biocompatibility evaluation, no adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1) was used. These methods are typically employed in clinical studies for establishing expert consensus on diagnoses.

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, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This document describes the clearance of a physical medical device (balloon catheter) and its mechanical/biological performance, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, there is no mention of human readers or AI assistance.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
   No, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was not done. This is a physical medical device, not a software algorithm.

6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
   For the performance bench testing, the "ground truth" is defined by established product specifications, engineering standards, and scientific principles. For biocompatibility, the ground truth is determined by well-defined ISO and ASTM biological evaluation standards and protocols, which provide objective criteria for toxicity, sensitization, etc.

7. The sample size for the training set:
   This device is a physical medical product, not an AI/machine learning model. Therefore, there is no concept of a "training set" in this context.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   As there is no training set for a physical device, this question is not applicable. The "ground truth" for the device's acceptable performance is defined by its compliance with design specifications and relevant regulatory standards.

Ask a specific question about this device