Search Results

The Advance Serenity 18 Hydrophilic PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter is indicated for Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty (PTA) of the peripheral vasculature in the iliac, femoral, popliteal, infrapopliteal, and renal arteries, and for the treatment of obstructive lesions of native or synthetic arteriovenous dialysis fistulae.

The Advance Serenity™ 18 Hydrophilic PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter is a coaxial catheter with a semi compliant balloon near the distal tip. It is an Over-the-Wire (OTW) Percutaneous Transluminal Anqioplasty (PTA) device with various shaft lengths. The balloon has two radiopaque markers that aid in the placement of the balloon within the stenosis. The clearance between the inner and outer shafts acts as the passage for the inflation medium for balloon expansion. The proximal end of the catheter has a bifurcated manifold & strain relief that allows for the 0.018" guidewire and the attachment of a balloon inflation device via a standard luer connector. The inflation device is used to inflate and deflate the balloon with a contrast medium. The device is used by positioning the balloon catheter over a guidewire. The balloon is aligned under fluoroscopy in the diseased vessel at the area to be treated. The balloon is then inflation media to pressures ranging between the nominal and the rated burst pressure to dilate the occluded area. On completion the balloon is then deflated under vacuum and removed from the patient. The Advance Serenity™ 18 Hydrophilic PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter is to be provided sterile (via ethylene oxide, EtQ) and is intended for single use only.

The provided text is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter and its associated summary for a medical device: the "Advance Serenity™ 18 Hydrophilic PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter." This document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving the safety and effectiveness of a novel device through clinical trials and rigorous statistical validation against predefined acceptance criteria.

Therefore, the information regarding acceptance criteria, study design for proving device performance, sample sizes for test sets, establishment of ground truth, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone performance, training set details, and ground truth for training data is not present in the provided text.

The document primarily outlines:

• Acceptance Criteria (Implicit via Substantial Equivalence): The implicit acceptance criterion for this 510(k) submission is that the device must be shown to be "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device. This means it has the same intended use, similar technological characteristics, and any differences do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.
• Reported Device Performance: Instead of a detailed table of acceptance criteria and performance against them, the document lists bench tests performed to demonstrate that the small changes (expanded matrix of balloon sizes) compared to the predicate device do not compromise safety or effectiveness.

Here's a breakdown of what is available and what is missing from your request based on the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated as pass/fail thresholds for specific performance metrics in a table. The overall acceptance criterion is "substantial equivalence" to the predicate.

• Reported Device Performance: The document lists bench tests performed, indicating that the results "demonstrate that the technological differences identified do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness." Specific quantitative results or acceptance criteria for these bench tests are not provided.

  Performed Bench Tests (as listed):

  • Rated burst pressure (RBP)
  • Inflation & deflation time
  • Balloon diameters at nominal pressure to RBP
  • Simulated use - Pushability & Trackability & Sheath Compatibility
  • Coating integrity (b)
  • Multiple inflation/fatigue & leak test
  • Tensile strength Balloon to Shaft (proximal bond)
  • Particulate
  • Balloon Length & Marker Band Position (Leveraged from predicate)
  • Radiopacity (Leveraged from predicate)
  • Ancillary Tool Compatibility (Guidewire) (Leveraged from predicate)
  • Catheter Effective Length (Leveraged from predicate)
  • Tensile Strength Manifold to Shaft (Manifold Bond) (Leveraged from predicate)
  • Tensile Strength (Distal / Tip Bond) (Leveraged from predicate)
  • Tip Profile (Geometry of the catheter most distal tip) (Leveraged from predicate)
  • Simulated Use, Push & Track (Leveraged from predicate)
  • Flexibility & Kink (Leveraged from predicate)
  • Coating Lubricity (Leveraged from predicate)
  • Coating Integrity (a) (Leveraged from predicate)
  • Torque Strength (Leveraged from predicate)

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

• Sample Sizes: Not specified. This document refers to bench testing of a medical device, which typically involves a number of units tested to engineering specifications, but these numbers are not disclosed.
• Data Provenance: The tests are bench tests, not clinical data, so country of origin/retrospective/prospective doesn't apply in the same way. The manufacturer is based in Ireland (Creagh Medical Ltd. dba Surmodics, Inc.).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g., radiologist with 10 years of experience)

• This is not part of a bench test evaluation for a substantial equivalence determination. Experts are not typically used to establish "ground truth" for physical device performance metrics like burst pressure.

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

• Not applicable to bench testing.

5. 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

• No MRMC study was done. This device is a physical catheter, not an AI/software device that assists human readers.
• The document explicitly states: "No clinical studies were required for the Advance Serenity 18 Hydrophilic PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter."

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

• Not applicable as it's not an AI/software device.

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

• Not applicable. Performance is measured against engineering specifications and industry standards for physical device properties, not against "ground truth" derived from clinical data or expert consensus.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable; there is no training set for a physical medical device. (This is relevant for AI models).

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• Not applicable; there is no training set.

In summary, the provided FDA document is a 510(k) clearance letter for a physical medical device, based on demonstrated "substantial equivalence" through bench testing, not clinical studies or AI model validation. Therefore, most of the detailed information requested regarding clinical study design, data characteristics, expert involvement, and AI model evaluation (points 2-9) is not found in this type of submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Sterling Monorail PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter is indicated for Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty in the peripheral vasculature, including iliac, femoral, popliteal, renal, and carotid arteries, and for the treatment of obstructive lesions of native or synthetic arteriovenous dialysis fistulae. This device is also indicated for post-dilatation of balloon expandable and selfexpanding stents in the peripheral vasculature.

The Sterling Balloon Dilatation Catheter is a Monorail brand rapid exchange catheter with a semicompliant balloon fixed at the distal tip. The balloon catheter has a coaxial shaft design. The outer lumen is used for inflation of the balloon, and the wire lumen permits the use of guidewires 0.014 in / 0.018 in to facilitate advancement of the catheter to and through the stenosis to be dilated. The product's catheter includes a tapered tip to facilitate advancement of the catheter to and through the stenosis. Two radiopaque marker bands (one proximal and one distal), in conjunction with fluoroscopy, enable accurate positioning of the balloon. The effective length of the balloon catheter is 200 cm; catheter markers indicate the exit of the dilatation catheter tip out of the guiding catheter (one at 90 cm and two at 100 cm).

This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called the Sterling™ MONORAIL™ PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter. It seeks to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

The provided text does not contain information related to an AI/ML device or its performance criteria. Therefore, I cannot furnish the requested details regarding acceptance criteria, study methodologies for AI performance, sample sizes for test/training sets, expert ground truth establishment, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance.

The document focuses on the bench testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence for this physical medical device (a balloon catheter), not a software or AI/ML product. The performance data section explicitly lists:

• Sterilization Testing
• Bench Testing (Dimensional Verification, Simulated Use, Balloon Inflation & Deflation Time, Catheter Bond Strength, Flexibility & Kink test, Torque Strength, Shaft & Bond Burst, Catheter Extension & Deflation, Packaging Testing, Design Validation Testing)

These are typical tests for a physical medical device to ensure its mechanical properties, function, and safety, not for evaluating an AI algorithm's diagnostic or predictive capabilities.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Jade PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter is indicated for Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty in the peripheral vasculature, including iliac, femoral, poplited, infra-popliteal, and renal arteries, and for the treatment of obstructive lesions of native or synthetic arteriovenous dialysis fistulae. This device is also indicated for post-dilation of balloon expandable and self-expanding stents in the peripheral vasculature.

The JADE PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheters is now also available as an over-the-wire balloon catheter for peripheral indications. The balloon diameters range from 1.5mm to 6.0mm and balloon lengths range from 20mm to 240mm, with 90cm, 150cm and 200cm catheter lengths. The balloon material is made of a minimally compliant material with a rated burst pressure of 18 atmospheres for 5.0-6.0mm and 20atm for 1.5-4.0mm. Hydrophilic lubricious coatings are applied to the distal section of the catheter. The shaft of the catheter is composed of a proximal shaft and a distal shaft. The distal shaft is composed of a distal outer tube and tri-extrusion inner tube with a balloon welded to both tubes at the distal tip to aid in tracking through vasculature. The proximal shaft is composed of a proximal outer tube and tri-extrusion inner tube that are bonded to a female luer connector, with the proximal outer tube allowing for proximal pushability with a smooth transition to the distal shaft. The inner lumen of the catheter accepts a maximum 0.014 inch (0.36mm) guidewire. The guidewire enters the catheter tip and advances coaxially out the hub guidewire lumen. Two radiopaque marker bands are positioned within the balloon shoulder, and for balloons of working length 180-240mm, two more marker bands (four marker bands in total) are positioned in the middle of the balloon. One marked section, for the 90cm catheter working length, or two marked sections, for the 150cm and 200cm catheter working lengths, are located on the proximal shaft to indicate catheter position relative to the tip of the guiding catheter or introducer sheath. The Y-type hub is bonded on the proximal end of the catheter at the entrance to the inflation lumen and the guidewire lumen. The design of this dilatation catheter does not incorporate a lumen for distal dye injections or distal pressure measurements.

The provided text describes the 510(k) summary for the Jade PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter, which is a medical device. This type of submission is for proving "substantial equivalence" to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving that an AI/algorithm-based device meets specific performance criteria.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves an AI/algorithm device meets those criteria. The provided text details performance testing for a physical medical device (a balloon catheter) to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness, and its equivalence to a predicate catheter.

Specifically, the document does not address any of the following points relevant to an AI/algorithm-based device study:

• 1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance (for an AI/algorithm)
• 2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance
• 3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts
• 4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
• 5. 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
• 6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
• 7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)
• 8. The sample size for the training set
• 9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

The performance data mentioned in the document (Visual Inspection, Marker Band Radiopacity, Dimensional Verification, etc.) are all related to the physical characteristics and functionality of the balloon catheter, not an AI algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

Bashir™ Endovascular Catheter: The Bashir™ Endovascular Catheter is intended for the controlled and selective infusion of physician-specified fluids, including thrombolytics, into the peripheral vasculature.

Bashir™ N-X Endovascular Catheter: The Bashir™ N-X Endovascular Catheter is intended for the controlled and selective infusion of physician-specified fluids into the peripheral and pulmonary artery vasculature.

Thrombolex developed the Bashir™ Endovascular Catheter (Model 7201) to enable delivery of physician-specified fluids, including thrombolytics, into the peripheral circulation. The Bashir™ N-X Endovascular Catheter (Model 7200) is a second model developed for infusion of physician-specified fluids in the pulmonary artery. The Bashir™ N-X differs from the Bashir™ Endovascular Catheter in that the infusion limbs do not expand into an infusion basket but remain collapsed in a straight configuration. The two device models have a different appearance, namely in the handle design and color, which ensures appropriate use and identification.

The design of the Bashir™ Endovascular Catheter allows for delivery and positioning of the catheter at the target peripheral location via a sheath, over a guidewire using fluoroscopic guidance. Depending on the target location, the infusion can be initiated either in the non-expanded position (for vessels with smaller diameters), or by controlled expansion of the infusion basket to a desired dimension inside the vessel by the interventional specialist under fluoroscopic guidance. The physician-specified solution is then delivered via multiple laser-drilled holes through the infusion limbs of the Bashir™ Endovascular Catheter. After the completion of solution delivery, the infusion limbs are collapsed to a straight position in the case of peripheral vasculature, and then the Bashir™ Endovascular Catheter is retracted into the sheath and removed.

The handle of the Bashir™ N-X Endovascular Catheter has been modified to disable expansion of the basket. The Bashir™ N-X Endovascular Catheter, unexpanded, is thus similar to other straight infusion catheters including the predicate device.

Delivery of the Bashir N-X™ Endovascular Catheter into the pulmonary artery is accomplished using a long guide sheath using standard interventional techniques. The Bashir™ Endovascular Catheter is placed over a guidewire inside the sheath to the desired location under fluoroscopic guidance. The catheter does not come in direct contact with the right atrium, tricuspid valve, right ventricle or pulmonic valve at any time, as it is within a guide sheath.

The Bashir™ Endovascular Catheter and Bashir™ N-X Endovascular Catheter are comprised of common materials used in vascular catheters. The catheter is mechanical and contains no electrical components.

The provided text describes the Bashir Endovascular Catheter and Bashir N-X Endovascular Catheter and their substantial equivalence to a predicate device, the Ekosonic Endovascular System. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria or a study that uses a standalone AI algorithm, or a multi-reader, multi-case comparative effectiveness study with human readers.

Based on the provided text, the following information can be extracted regarding the device performance and acceptance:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not specified for any of the performance tests. The text mentions "participants" for human factors testing and a "GLP porcine study" but does not quantify the number of subjects/samples.
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin for the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective. The animal study is described as a "GLP porcine study," implying a prospective, controlled study conducted under Good Laboratory Practice regulations.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts
This information is not provided in the document. The studies described are primarily bench, animal, and usability tests, not diagnostic accuracy studies that would typically involve expert-established ground truth. Expert involvement is implied in assessing usability criteria and potentially in interpreting animal study results, but no specifics are given.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set
This information is not provided in the document. Given the nature of the tests (bench, animal, usability), formal adjudication methods like 2+1 or 3+1 (common in diagnostic accuracy studies) would not typically be applicable.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study
No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done or described. The document focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of a medical device (catheter) through bench, animal, and usability testing, not on evaluating human reader performance with or without AI assistance.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) Study
No, a standalone algorithm study was not done. The device is a mechanical endovascular catheter, not an AI algorithm.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• Bench Testing: Ground truth is established by physical measurements, engineering specifications, and validated test methods (e.g., verifying flow rates against expected values, measuring device dimensions, checking for leaks).
• Animal Study: Ground truth is established by physiological and pathological assessments in the porcine model (e.g., absence of systemic or pathological adverse effects).
• Human Factors Testing: Ground truth is established by predefined acceptance criteria for task performance and user feedback, evaluated against the device's intended use.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set
This is not applicable as the device is a mechanical catheter and does not involve AI or machine learning algorithms that require a training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established
This is not applicable as the device is a mechanical catheter and does not involve AI or machine learning algorithms that require a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The 018 Hydrophilic Coated OTW PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter is indicated for Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty (PTA) of the peripheral vasculature in the iliac, femoral, popliteal, and renal arteries, and for the treatment of obstructive lesions of native or synthetic arteriovenous dialysis fistulae.

The catheter is a coaxial catheter with a semi compliant balloon near the distal tip. It is an Over-the-Wire (OTW) Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty (PTA) device with various shaft lengths. The balloon has two radiopaque markers that aid in the placement of the balloon within the stenosis. The clearance between the inner and outer shafts acts as the passage for the inflation medium for balloon expansion. The proximal end of the catheter has a bifurcated manifold & strain relief that allows for the use of the 0.018" guidewire and the attachment of a balloon inflation device via a standard luer connector. The inflation device is used to inflate and deflate the balloon with a contrast medium. The device is used by positioning the balloon catheter over a guidewire. The balloon is aligned under fluoroscopy in the diseased vessel at the area to be treated. The balloon is then inflation media to pressures ranging between the nominal and the rated burst pressure to dilate the occluded area. On completion the balloon is then deflated under vacuum and removed from the patient. The 018 Hydrophilic Coated OTW PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter is to be provided sterile (via ethylene oxide, EtO) and is intended for single use only.

The provided text describes a medical device, the "018 Hydrophilic Coated OTW PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter," and its FDA 510(k) submission. This document is a premarket notification for a medical device and is primarily focused on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving a device meets specific acceptance criteria based on its performance in a clinical study (like an AI/ML device would).

Therefore, there is no information present in the provided document to fulfill the request concerning:

• A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance for a study directly proving the device meets the acceptance criteria. The document discusses design verification testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device, not necessarily performance against pre-defined clinical acceptance criteria.
• Sample size for the test set and data provenance.
• Number of experts used to establish ground truth and their qualifications.
• Adjudication method.
• Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study.
• Standalone (algorithm only) performance.
• Type of ground truth used.
• Sample size for the training set.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established.

The document explicitly states: "No clinical data is being submitted for the 018 Hydrophilic Coated OTW PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter." This confirms that there was no clinical study conducted to establish performance metrics against acceptance criteria in the way one would for an AI/ML diagnostic device.

The study that was done to support this device's submission focused on:

• Performance Bench Testing: This involved tests like Rated Burst Pressure, Balloon Diameter, Inflation/Deflation Time, Tensile Strength, etc., to ensure the device performs as intended in a non-clinical setting and is comparable to the predicate. These are engineering specifications and internal quality assurance metrics, not "acceptance criteria" in the context of clinical performance or AI/ML evaluation.
• Biocompatibility: Testing to ensure the device is safe for human contact.
• Sterilization: Verifying the sterilization process.

These tests were performed to demonstrate "substantial equivalence" to a predicate device (Sterling™ Over-the-Wire™ (OTW) PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheter, K132430), meaning it has the same intended use, similar technological characteristics, and raises no new questions of safety or effectiveness. This is a common path for medical device clearance, especially for devices that are variations of existing technology.

Ask a specific question about this device

The balloon dilatation catheter is intended to dilate stenoral, iliofemoral, popliteal, infrapopliteal, and renal arteries, and for the treatment of obstructive lesions of native or synthetic arteriovenous dialysis fistulae. This device is also indicated for stent dilatation post-deployment in the peripheral vasculature.

The non-compliant PTA (Over-the-Wire, OTW) balloon dilatation catheter family consists of Castor NC (0.014"), Achilles NC (0.018") and Hermes NC (0.035") PTA balloon catheter. The PTA (OTW type) device is an over the wire (OTW) peripheral balloon catheter, specially designed for Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty (PTA). The catheter working length is 70, 90 and 150cm. Balloon diameters range from Ø2.0mm to Ø10.0mm, balloon work length range from 10mm to 150mm. The three PTA balloon dilatation catheters are filed in one 510(k) submission due to the similar/equivalent construction and identical material of the products. The comparison of them was summarized in Table 1. The differences only exist in the guide wire compatibility and the balloon configuration which have been controlled by the Design Verification. The balloon material is made of a non-compliant Nylon material for diameter 2.0mm to 10.0mm with a rated burst pressure of 18-22 atmospheres. It is a coaxial double lumen catheter with a balloon located near the distal tip. One lumen is used for inflation of the balloon and accessed via the side leg port. The second lumen, starting at the straight entry port, allows access to the distal tip of the catheter for guide wire insertion. The three products of the non-compliant PTA (OTW type) balloon catheter family have different diameter of the guide wire port from max.0.014" to 0.035". The guide wire compatibility was shown in table 1. The balloon has radiopaque markers for positioning the balloon relative to the stenosis. The radiopaque marker bands indicate the dilating section of the balloon and aid in balloon placement. The balloon is dilated using the side leg port, at which the balloon material expands to a known diameter at specific pressure. The working pressure range for the balloon is between the nominal size pressure and the rated burst pressure. All balloons distend to sizes above the nominal size at pressures greater than the nominal pressure. The design of this dilatation catheter does not incorporate a lumen for distal dye injections or distal pressure measurements.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the BrosMed Medical Co., Ltd.'s Castor, Achilles, and Hermes NC PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheters. This document details the regulatory approval process for a medical device by demonstrating its substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices.

It is crucial to understand that this document describes the acceptance criteria and study results for a medical device (balloon dilatation catheters), NOT for an Artificial Intelligence (AI) device. The questions posed in your prompt (e.g., sample size for test/training sets, experts for ground truth, MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance) are highly specific to AI/Machine Learning model evaluations, which are not applicable to the traditional medical device approval process described here.

Therefore, I cannot directly answer your questions as they relate to AI. However, I can extract the information relevant to the device's performance and acceptance criteria as presented in a traditional medical device context:

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and performance as described for these PTA Balloon Dilatation Catheters, framed as closely as possible to your request, while acknowledging the inherent differences:

The study conducted was a series of in-vitro performance tests and biocompatibility tests to demonstrate that the device meets predetermined acceptance criteria and is substantially equivalent to predicate devices. There is no mention of an "AI" component, data sets for training/testing AI models, or human expert consensus for "ground truth" derived from imaging.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Table)

For a medical device like a balloon dilatation catheter, acceptance criteria are typically engineering specifications, material properties, and functional performance benchmarks. The document states that "The test results met all acceptance criteria, were similar to predicate devices, and ensure that the PTA balloon catheter design and construction are suitable for its intended use." Specific numerical acceptance criteria are not detailed in this public summary, but the types of tests conducted demonstrate the areas where performance was evaluated.

Specific parameters evaluated include: |
| Dimensional Verification | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Balloon Preparation | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Deployment & Retraction | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Balloon Rated Burst Pressure | Met acceptance criteria. (Rated Burst Pressure (RBP) stated as 18, 20, 22 atm for all models). The actual test result met or exceeded this. |
| Balloon Fatigue | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Balloon Compliance | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Balloon Inflation/Deflation | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Catheter Bond Strength | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Tip Pull Strength | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Flexibility & Kinking | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Torque Strength | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Radiopacity | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Coating Integrity | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Particulate Evaluation | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Balloon Burst (in stents) | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Balloon Fatigue (in stents) | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Biocompatibility | "The test results met all acceptance criteria..." Again, specific quantitative details are not provided, but the umbrella statement indicates successful performance.

Specific tests include: |
| Cytotoxicity | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Sensitization | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Hemocompatibility | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Pyrogenicity | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Acute Systemic Toxicity | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Intracutaneous Reactivity | Met acceptance criteria. |
| Genotoxicity | Met acceptance criteria (bacterial mutagenicity and in vitro mouse lymphoma). |

Since the device is a physical medical instrument and not an AI algorithm, most of your specific AI-related questions (2-9) are not directly applicable. However, I can provide the closest equivalent information from the document:

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify exact sample sizes for each in-vitro or biocompatibility test. It generally states that "tests were conducted on the PTA balloon catheter." For physical device testing, sample sizes are typically determined by engineering and statistical principles to ensure sufficient data for reliability and statistical significance, but these are not disclosed in this summary.
• Data Provenance: The tests are performed by the manufacturer, BrosMed Medical Co., Ltd., based in Dongguan, China. The data originates from these internal, pre-market validation studies. All tests are inherently "prospective" in the sense that they are designed and executed to specifically test the device's performance against predefined criteria.

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

• This question is not applicable. "Ground truth" in the context of this device refers to objective measurements and adherence to engineering specifications and biological safety standards (e.g., a balloon bursting at or above its rated pressure, or a material not causing a cytotoxic reaction). There is no "expert consensus" in the sense of human interpretation of complex medical data for performance claims, as would be the case for an AI diagnostic tool.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• This question is not applicable. Performance is based on objective measurements against engineering specifications and validated test methods, not on human interpretation or adjudication.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:

• No, an MRMC study was NOT done. This type of study is specific to evaluating diagnostic tools (often imaging-based AI) where human readers (e.g., radiologists) interpret cases with and without AI assistance to measure improvement in diagnostic accuracy. This is not relevant for a balloon dilatation catheter.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

• This question is not applicable as there is no algorithm or AI component to this device. Its performance is inherent to its physical design, materials, and manufacturing.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• The "ground truth" for this device's performance validation is established through:
  • Engineering Specifications: Predefined performance metrics (e.g., burst pressure, dimensions, flexibility) that the device must meet.
  • Validated Test Methods: Adherence to recognized national and international standards for medical device testing.
  • Biocompatibility Standards: Compliance with established biological safety requirements for materials in contact with the human body.
  • Comparison to Predicate Devices: Demonstrating "substantial equivalence" means showing that the device performs similarly to or better than existing, legally marketed devices.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• This question is not applicable. There is no "training set" in the context of a physical medical device. The device is designed, manufactured, and then validated through testing.

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

• This question is not applicable for the reasons stated above.

In summary, the provided document is a regulatory submission for a conventional medical device, not an AI/ML algorithm. The acceptance criteria revolve around the physical and biological performance of the catheter, and the "study" consists of a battery of engineering and biocompatibility tests designed to prove its safety and effectiveness relative to existing predicate devices.

Ask a specific question about this device