Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(195 days)
PERI-GUARD is intended for repair of pericardial structures. PERI-GUARD is also intended for use as a patch for intracardiac defects, great vessel, septal defects and annulus repair, and suture-line buttressing.
SUPPLE PERI-GUARD is intended for use as a prosthesis for pericardial closure.
PERI-GUARD Repair Patch (PERI-GUARD) and SUPPLE PERI-GUARD Repair Patch (SUPPLE PERI-GUARD) are derived from bovine pericardium procured from cattle originating in the United States. The pericardium is crosslinked with glutaraldehyde and treated with 1 molar sodium hydroxide for a minimum of 60 minutes at 20-25°C (68-77°F).
PERI-GUARD and SUPPLE PERI-GUARD are terminally sterilized using gamma irradiation and packaged within a sterile double-pouch system. The contents of the unopened, undamaged outer pouch are sterile.
PERI-GUARD and SUPPLE PERI-GUARD are MR Safe.
PERI-GUARD and SUPPLE PERI-GUARD utilize animal tissue; patient must be informed prior to any procedure.
This is a 510(k) premarket notification for the PERI-GUARD Repair Patch and SUPPLE PERI-GUARD Repair Patch. This document describes the device, its intended use, and the performance data provided to demonstrate substantial equivalence to predicate devices. The submission focuses on changes to packaging and sterilization parameters, with a reliance on historical data for many performance aspects.
Here's the breakdown of the acceptance criteria and the study information:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance
The document does not explicitly present a table of "acceptance criteria" with numerical targets and corresponding "device performance" results for each criterion in the typical sense of a clinical or standalone performance study. Instead, it lists various performance tests conducted to support substantial equivalence. The "reported device performance" is implicitly that the devices "meet" or "demonstrate equivalence" to the predicate devices.
| Acceptance Criteria (Implied) | Reported Device Performance |
|---|---|
| Visual Appearance | Met (Implied, by not noting any issues) |
| Suture Retention Strength | Equivalent to predicate devices (Implied) |
| Dimensional Accuracy | Met (Implied, by not noting deviations) |
| Burst Strength | Equivalent to predicate devices (Implied) |
| Collagenase Digestion | Met (Implied, by not noting issues) |
| Denaturation Temperature | Met (Implied, by not noting issues) |
| Water Permeability | Met (Implied, by not noting issues) |
| Pliability | Met (Implied, by not noting issues) |
| Chemical & Heavy Metal Residuals | Met (Implied, by not noting issues) |
| Bioburden | Met (Implied, by not noting issues) |
| Pyrogenicity/Endotoxins | Met (Implied, by not noting issues) |
| Temperature Excursion | Met (Implied, by not noting issues) |
| Biocompatibility | Equivalent to predicate devices per ISO 10993-1:2018 |
| Shelf Life (1 year) | Supported by aging testing |
| Sterilization Validation | Validated per ISO 11137 parts 1 and 2 |
| Packaging Integrity | Supported by testing per ISO 11607-1, ASTM F88-15, ASTM F2096-11 |
| Aseptic Transfer (Human Factors) | Confirmed by human factors testing |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance
The document does not specify exact sample sizes for each performance test. It mentions "aging testing" for shelf life, but without a specific sample size. The studies are non-clinical (laboratory/bench testing, in vitro), not based on patient data. Therefore, questions about country of origin and retrospective/prospective nature are not applicable in this context.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications
Not applicable. This is a submission for a medical device (a patch), and the evaluation is based on non-clinical performance data and substantial equivalence to existing devices, not on diagnostic accuracy against a "ground truth" established by human experts.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
Not applicable. See point 3.
5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done, What Was the Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs Without AI Assistance
Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/software as a medical device (SaMD) that involves human readers or AI assistance.
6. If a Standalone (i.e., Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done
Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm or AI.
7. The Type of Ground Truth Used
Not applicable in the context of diagnostic accuracy. For the performance tests listed, the "ground truth" or reference standards are the established industry standards, test methodologies (e.g., ASTM, ISO), and the performance characteristics of the predicate devices. For example, for "Burst Strength," the "ground truth" would be the measurement obtained using a validated testing procedure, and the performance would be compared to that of the predicate.
8. The Sample Size for the Training Set
Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set."
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1