Search Results

The AngioSculpt PTA.Scoring Balloon Catheter is intended for dilatation of lesions in the iliac, femoral, lito-femoral, popliteal, infra popliteal, and renal arteries, and for the treatment of obstructive lestons of native or synthelic anteriovenous dialysis fistulae. Not for use in the coronary or neuro-vasculature.

The AngioSculpt PTA Scoring Balloon Catheter with HydroCross™ Coating is a standard twolumen catheter with a scoring balloon near the distal end of the catheter has a conventional nylon-blend balloon with a scoring element that wraps around the balloon. The scoring element creates focal concentrations of dilating force which minimizes balloon slippage and assists with luminal expansion of stenotic arteries. The balloon has radiopaque markers to aid in positioning the balloon in the stenosis, and is designed to provide an expandable segment of known diameter and length at a specific pressure. As shown below, the catheter has a segment which is coated with a hydrophilic coating (HydroCross™ Coating).

The provided text describes a medical device, the AngioSculpt® PTA Scoring Balloon Catheter with HydroCross™ Coating, and its clearance process with the FDA. However, the document does NOT contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets specific performance criteria in the way typically expected for an AI/ML medical device submission (e.g., sensitivity, specificity, F1-score, AUC, etc., derived from clinical data).

Instead, this document is a 510(k) summary for a physical medical device (a balloon catheter) seeking substantial equivalence to already marketed devices. The "studies" described are primarily bench testing (mechanical, material properties) and biocompatibility testing, and an animal study to demonstrate safety and deliverability. These types of tests are standard for physical devices to ensure they perform as intended and are safe for use.

Therefore, many of the requested fields regarding acceptance criteria related to a device's performance in diagnosing or predicting (like sensitivity/specificity) and specific details about ground truth, expert readers, MRMC studies, or training sets for AI algorithms are not applicable to this document.

Here's a breakdown based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

As this is a physical medical device, the "acceptance criteria" are not reported as statistical performance metrics like sensitivity or specificity. Instead, they are defined by successful completion of various engineering and biological tests, demonstrating the device meets design requirements and safety standards. The "reported device performance" is the successful outcome of these tests.

2. Sample Size for Test Set and Data Provenance

• Bench Testing: "Test articles consisted of finished sterilized catheters." The exact number of catheters tested for each bench test is not specified in this summary.
• Biocompatibility Testing: The number of biological samples or animals used for each specific biocompatibility test (e.g., L-929 Mouse Fibroblast cells for cytotoxicity, Guinea pigs for sensitization) is not specified.
• Animal Study: The sample size (number of animals) for the acute GLP animal study is not explicitly stated.
• Data Provenance: The document does not specify country of origin for the data; it refers to tests conducted in accordance with FDA GLP regulations (21 CFR Part 58) and ISO standards for biocompatibility. The animal study was conducted as a GLP study. Given the company is US-based (Fremont, CA), it's highly likely the testing was performed in the USA or by labs adhering to these international/US standards. All studies sound prospective as they were specifically designed to characterize this device.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• Not Applicable: This type of information is generally relevant for studies establishing clinical ground truth (e.g., presence of a disease from imaging) for interpretive devices. For this physical device, "ground truth" is established by direct physical, chemical, and biological measurements, and observed adverse events (or lack thereof) in an animal model. The "experts" are likely laboratory technicians and veterinarians performing and assessing the animal study, certified in their respective fields, but not defined in terms of their role as "ground truth adjudicators" in a clinical sense.

4. Adjudication Method for Test Set

• Not Applicable: Adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 are used to resolve disagreements among multiple human readers when establishing ground truth, typically in the context of diagnostic performance studies. This is not descriptive of the testing performed for a physical device. Outcomes of bench tests are based on objective measurements against specifications. The animal study outcomes would be assessed by the study's veterinary and pathology team.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

• No: No MRMC study was performed or described. This type of study is relevant for comparing the diagnostic performance of an AI system, with and without human assistance, against human readers. The AngioSculpt catheter is a physical interventional device, not an AI diagnostic tool.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• Not Applicable: There is no algorithm-only performance study because this is a physical medical device, not a software algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Bench Testing: The ground truth for bench tests is objective physical and chemical measurements against pre-defined engineering specifications and accepted industry standards.
• Biocompatibility Testing: The ground truth is based on established biological responses (e.g., cell viability, immune response, genetic mutation) as measured by validated assays against accepted toxicity limits and ISO standards.
• Animal Study: The ground truth is direct observation by trained personnel (veterinarians, histopathologists) of in-vivo events and tissue responses in an animal model, assessing for safety endpoints like dissection, perforation, embolization, and device integrity.

8. Sample Size for Training Set

• Not Applicable: No "training set" in the context of machine learning was used or described. The device's design and performance are based on engineering principles, material science, and iterative testing, not on training an AI model with data.

9. How Ground Truth for Training Set Was Established

• Not Applicable: As there is no training set, this question is not relevant.

Ask a specific question about this device