Search Filters

Search Results

Found 1 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K203533
    Device Name
    VASSALLO GT
    Manufacturer
    Date Cleared
    2021-04-21

    (140 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    870.1330
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K153443, K083146, K022762, K070945

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    This product is intended to facilitate the placement and exchange of diagnostic and therapeutic devices during intravascular procedures. This device is intended for peripheral vascular use only.

    Device Description

    The VASSALLO® GT Peripheral Guide Wires in this submission are steerable guide wires with a maximum diameter of 0.014 inches (0.36mm) and available in 190cm and 300cm lengths. These devices have a solid core with a hydrophilic coil-type distal end. When wet, the hydrophilic coating increases the lubricity of the quidewire surface. Some models also include silicone coating on the distal tip. The coil is partly or entirely radiopaque to facilitate selection of the blood vessel and confirmation of the position of the guide wire's distal end by fluoroscopy. The core shaft surface is coated with Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). About 2cm of the distal end can be shaped. A detachable extension wire (hereafter "extension wire") is available to connect with the proximal end of the quide wire with a length of less than 300 cm. A Torque device is included in the same package.

    AI/ML Overview

    This document is a 510(k) summary for the VASSALLO® GT Guide Wire. It details the device's characteristics, intended use, and substantial equivalence to predicate devices, based on non-clinical testing.

    Here's a breakdown of the requested information based on the provided text:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

    The document states that "The in vitro bench tests demonstrated that the VASSALLO GT met all acceptance criteria". However, it does not provide a specific table of acceptance criteria with corresponding performance values. It only lists the types of tests performed.

    Test PerformedAcceptance CriteriaReported Device Performance
    Dimensional VerificationNot specified in documentMet acceptance criteria
    Visual InspectionNot specified in documentMet acceptance criteria
    Simulated UseNot specified in documentMet acceptance criteria
    Tensile Strength / Tip PullNot specified in documentMet acceptance criteria
    Torque StrengthNot specified in documentMet acceptance criteria
    TorqueabilityNot specified in documentMet acceptance criteria
    Coating IntegrityNot specified in documentMet acceptance criteria
    Coating AdhesionNot specified in documentMet acceptance criteria
    Catheter Compatibility / LubricityNot specified in documentMet acceptance criteria
    Corrosion ResistanceNot specified in documentMet acceptance criteria
    Kink ResistanceNot specified in documentMet acceptance criteria
    Tip FlexibilityNot specified in documentMet acceptance criteria
    RadiopacityNot specified in documentMet acceptance criteria

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

    The document does not specify the sample size used for each non-clinical test.
    The data provenance is from non-clinical laboratory testing performed on the VASSALLO® GT. The country of origin for the manufacturing company (Filmecc Co., Ltd.) is Japan. The type of study is bench testing (in vitro), not human subject testing (prospective or retrospective).

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

    This question is not applicable as the study described is non-clinical bench testing, not a clinical study involving expert interpretation of data or images. Ground truth for non-clinical tests is established by adhering to testing standards and specifications.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

    This question is not applicable as the study described is non-clinical bench testing. Adjudication methods are typically relevant for clinical studies where human interpretation or consensus is required.

    5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done

    No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This document focuses on non-clinical bench testing of a guide wire, not an AI-assisted diagnostic device. Therefore, there is no discussion of human readers, AI assistance, or effect sizes in that context.

    6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done

    This question is not applicable. The device is a medical guide wire, not an algorithm or software requiring standalone performance evaluation.

    7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

    For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" or reference for evaluating performance would be predefined engineering specifications, international standards, and performance characteristics of predicate devices. The document states that the device "met all acceptance criteria" and "performed similarly to the predicate and reference devices," implying comparison against these types of benchmarks.

    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

    This question is not applicable. There is no mention of a "training set" as this is a physical medical device undergoing bench testing, not an AI/machine learning model.

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

    This question is not applicable as there is no training set for a guide wire.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1