Search Results

The exGraft and exGraft Carbon ePTFE Vascular Grafts are indicated for use as vascular prostheses.

exGraft and exGraft Carbon ePTFE Vascular Grafts are intended for use as vascular prostheses for replacement or bypass of diseased vessels in patients suffering occlusive or aneurysmal diseases, in trauma patients requiring vascular replacement, for dialysis access, or for other vascular procedures.

The exGraft and exGraft Carbon ePTFE Vascular Grafts are single use sterile vascular grafts constructed of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) with a radiopaque ink applied to the surface. The exGraft Carbon ePTFE vascular grafts also contain a carbon coating impregnated into the inner surface of the graft wall.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary from the FDA for a medical device called "exGraft ePTFE Vascular Grafts, exGraft Carbon ePTFE Vascular Grafts." This document primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on manufacturing changes, and does not contain information about the acceptance criteria or a study proving that the device meets those criteria in the context of an Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) device.

The document lists performance data that was included in the submission, such as:

• Burst Strength
• Strength after Repeated Puncture
• Tensile Strength
• Suture Retention Strength
• Kink Radius
• Water Entry Pressure
• Microscopic Porosity
• Wall Thickness Eccentricity
• Wall Thickness

However, these are engineering performance data points for a physical vascular graft, not metrics relevant to an AI/ML device's performance (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity).

Therefore, it is not possible to provide the requested information about acceptance criteria and a study proving an AI/ML device meets them, because this medical device is a physical vascular graft, not an AI/ML device. The request asks for details like "sample size used for the test set," "number of experts used to establish the ground truth," "adjudication method," "MRMC comparative effectiveness study," "standalone performance," and "type of ground truth," all of which are concepts applicable to AI/ML device validation, not to a physical vascular graft.

The 510(k) summary clearly states:

"The exGraft and exGraft Carbon ePTFE Vascular Grafts are single use sterile vascular grafts constructed of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) with a radiopaque ink applied to the surface. The exGraft Carbon ePTFE vascular grafts also contain a carbon coating impregnated into the inner surface of the graft wall."

This describes a physical product, not a software device that would have AI/ML components requiring the type of performance study details requested.

Ask a specific question about this device

The exGraft and exGraft Carbon ePTFE Vascular Grafts are indicated for use as vascular prostheses. exGraft and exGraft Carbon ePTFE Vascular Grafts are intended for use as vascular prostheses for replacement or bypass of diseased vessels in patients suffering occlusive or aneurysmal diseases, in trauma patients requiring vascular replacement, for dialysis access, or for other vascular procedures.

The exGraft and exGraft Carbon ePTFE Vascular Grafts are single use sterile vascular grafts constructed of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) with a radiopaque ink applied to the surface. The exGraft Carbon ePTFE vascular grafts also contain a carbon coating impregnated into the inner surface of the graft wall.

I am sorry, but the provided text from the FDA 510(k) notification for the exGraft and exGraft Carbon ePTFE Vascular Grafts does not contain the information necessary to describe acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria, specifically concerning performance data related to AI/algorithm performance.

The document is a 510(k) clearance letter and summary for a vascular graft, which is a physical medical device, not a software or AI-based device. Therefore, it does not involve AI performance metrics, expert adjudication for ground truth, MRMC studies, or training/test sets as would be relevant for an AI/ML device.

The "Performance Data" section (VII) in the 510(k) Summary explicitly states: "The proposed exGraft and exGraft Carbon ePTFE Vascular Grafts utilize the same performance data as the exGraft and exGraft Carbon ePTFE Vascular Grafts cleared under K202471. Additional nonclinical data related to packaging, shelf life and sterilization was provided to support substantial equivalence." This indicates that the performance data refers to the physical characteristics and safety/efficacy of the vascular graft itself, not an AI algorithm.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information based on the given input.

Ask a specific question about this device

The exGraft and exGraft Carbon ePTFE Vascular Grafts are indicated for use as vascular prostheses.

The exGraft and exGraft Carbon ePTFE Vascular Grafts are intended for use as subcutaneous arteriovenous conduits for blood access, bypass, or reconstruction of peripheral arterial blood vessels.

The exGraft and exGraft Carbon ePTFE Vascular Grafts are single use sterile vascular grafts constructed of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) with a radiopaque ink applied to the surface. The exGraft Carbon ePTFE vascular grafts also contain a carbon coating impregnated into the inner surface of the graft wall.

The provided text is for a medical device called "exGraft and exGraft Carbon ePTFE Vascular Grafts," which is a vascular prosthesis. This type of device is a physical product, not a software or AI-based diagnostic tool. Therefore, the concept of "acceptance criteria" and "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" as defined by the prompt (which implies performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or human reader improvement for AI/software) does not directly apply here.

The "performance data" section in the document refers to engineering and material testing rather than clinical study data involving humans reading images or making diagnoses.

However, I can extract the information provided in the document and present it in a format that aligns with the spirit of the prompt, reinterpreting "acceptance criteria" as the engineering and material performance requirements for this physical device.

Reinterpretation for a Physical Device:

• Acceptance Criteria: These are the established performance specifications for the physical properties of the vascular graft (e.g., kink radius, microscopic porosity, water entry pressure, MRI safety).
• Reported Device Performance: The results of the tests conducted on the exGraft and exGraft Carbon ePTFE Vascular Grafts to demonstrate that they meet these specifications.
• Study Proving Acceptance: The testing performed to support substantial equivalence to the predicate device.

Analysis based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

The document does not provide specific numerical acceptance criteria or the exact numerical reported performance for each criterion. Instead, it states that "the exGraft and exGraft Carbon are substantially equivalent to the predicate device" based on historical data and performance testing. The "performance testing" lists the types of tests conducted.

Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Reinterpreted for a Physical Device):

Note: The document explicitly states that the technological differences "do not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness" and "can be evaluated with performance testing," and that the device "leverages historical data from the predicate and reference devices." This implies that the 'acceptance criteria' are met if the new device's performance is comparable to or within acceptable limits of the predicate device for these physical characteristics.

Study Details:

Given that this is a physical medical device (vascular graft) and not an AI/software product, many sections of your prompt (e.g., ground truth, experts, MRMC studies, training/test sets) are not applicable in their traditional sense for this type of device. I will address the relevant parts and explicitly state when a section is not applicable (N/A) based on the provided text for this physical device.

1. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):

   • Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated in terms of the number of graft samples tested for each criterion. The document refers to "testing" being performed.
   • Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). The testing would have been conducted by the manufacturer, PECA Labs, Inc., in the U.S.
   • Nature of Data: This refers to physical and material property measurements, not clinical patient data.

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

   • N/A: For a physical device like a vascular graft, "ground truth" is established through standardized engineering and material testing protocols, not by expert consensus on clinical images or diagnoses. The "truth" is the measured physical property.

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

   • N/A: Not relevant for material property testing of a physical device.

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:

   • N/A: This is a physical device, not an AI or diagnostic imaging tool. No human reader studies (MRMC) would be relevant here.

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

   • N/A: This is a physical device, not an algorithm.

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

   • Physical Property Measurements: The "ground truth" for this device is the objective, measurable physical properties (kink radius, porosity, water entry pressure, MRI safety) determined through standardized laboratory testing. It is not based on expert consensus, pathology, or clinical outcomes data described in this document, though clinical performance would be evaluated separately post-market or in later clinical trials if required.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • N/A: There is no "training set" in the context of a physical medical device submission like this. The device is not learning from data. It's manufactured to specifications. "Historical data from the predicate and reference devices" are used for comparison, not for "training."

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

   • N/A: See point 7.

Ask a specific question about this device