Search Results

The CXI™ Support Catheter is intended for use in small vessel or superselective anatomy for diagnostic and interventional procedures, including peripheral use.

The CXI™ Support Catheter with hydrophilic coating is a braided, kink-resistant catheter designed to facilitate wire guide exchange, wire guide support and to provide a conduit for the delivery of saline solutions or diagnostic contrast agents. The CXI" Support Catheter will be available in catheter sizes of 2.6 and 4.0 French and with catheter lengths of 65, 90, 135, and 150 centimeters. The catheters will be supplied sterile and are intended for one-time use.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and supporting studies for the CXI™ Support Catheter:

Summary:

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for the CXI™ Support Catheter. The core of the submission relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device (CXI™ Support Catheter, K072724). This means the acceptance criteria are primarily focused on showing that the new device performs at least as well as, and is as safe and effective as, the predicate device, despite minor modifications in available sizes and coaxial use. The study presented is an animal study.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Important Note: The document doesn't explicitly state quantitative "acceptance criteria" for each performance parameter (e.g., "pushability must exceed X newtons"). Instead, it states that the overall testing showed the devices were "adequate or better" in these parameters, supporting the claim of substantial equivalence. This is common in 510(k) submissions where comparison to a predicate is key.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact sample size (number of animals or trials). It simply states "Animal Testing."
• Data Provenance: The study was "Animal Testing," implying it was conducted in a controlled laboratory setting. The country of origin is not specified, but given the company (Cook Incorporated) is based in Bloomington, Indiana, USA, it's highly probable the testing was conducted within the USA or under US regulatory guidelines. It is a prospective study, as it describes tests performed to demonstrate performance.

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

This type of information is generally not applicable to a preclinical animal study involving medical devices like catheters. The "ground truth" here is the direct, observable physical performance of the catheter in the animal model. The assessment of "adequate or better" would likely have been conducted by the study investigators (engineers, veterinary staff, and potentially physicians) based on predefined metrics or observations relevant to catheter performance. The document does not specify the number or qualifications of these individuals.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Not applicable in the context of this preclinical animal study. Adjudication methods like "2+1" or "3+1" are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation of medical images or data by multiple human experts, where there can be inter-reader variability. Here, the performance metrics are physical characteristics directly observed or measured during the animal procedure.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. An MRMC study involves human readers (e.g., radiologists) interpreting cases with and without AI assistance to measure differences in diagnostic accuracy or efficiency. The provided submission is for a medical device (catheter) and relies on preclinical (animal) testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence, not a diagnostic AI algorithm.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Was Done

No, this question is not applicable. The device in question is a medical catheter, not an AI algorithm. Therefore, there is no "algorithm only" performance to evaluate.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

The ground truth used for the animal testing was the direct, observable and measurable physical performance of the catheter in the animal model, as assessed against expected performance parameters for such a device (e.g., ease of introduction, pushability, trackability, flexibility, torquability, withdrawal, and post-use integrity). This is a form of empirical ground truth based on experimental observation.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This question is not applicable. The device is a physical medical instrument (catheter), not a machine learning model. Therefore, there is no "training set" in the context of AI. The "training" in manufacturing of such devices refers to internal process validation and quality control, not data-driven model training.

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

This question is not applicable as there is no training set in the context of an AI device.

Ask a specific question about this device