Search Results

The Double Flexible Tipped Wire Guides are used to facilitate the placement of devices during diagnostic and interventional procedures.

The Double Flexible Tipped Wire Guides are Class II devices according to 21 CFR §870.1330; product code DQX (Wire, Guide, Catheter). The Double Flexible Tipped Wire Guides are wire guides with a flexible distal and proximal end. Double Flexible Tipped Wire Guides are intended to facilitate placement of devices used during diagnostic and interventional procedures.

The Double Flexible Tipped Wire Guides, subject of this submission, have been modified from the predicate device, Heavy Double Flexible Tipped Wire Guide (K150802), to include additional lengths ranging from 30 to 260 centimeters, additional outside diameters ranging from 0.018 to 0.038 inches, and additional curve radii ranging from 0 to 3 millimeters.

The Double Flexible Tipped Wire Guides are manufactured using a stainless steel core wire, and stainless steel coils. Some configurations include an exterior coating on the coils.

The modifications to the Double Flexible Tipped Wire Guides have been created to provide additional options for physicians in selecting the appropriate wire guide during diagnostic and interventional procedures.

The Double Flexible Tipped Wire Guides are packaged, sterile devices intended for single use.

The provided text describes the Double Flexible Tipped Wire Guides. Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and study information:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

The document does not specify the exact sample sizes for each test mentioned (e.g., number of wire guides tested for fracture, tensile, etc.). It only states that the various tests were "performed" and that "all test articles evaluated" met acceptance criteria for the animal model.

Data provenance is not explicitly stated as retrospective or prospective, nor are countries of origin for the data. The tests are described as being performed "to demonstrate that the Double Flexible Tipped Wire Guides met applicable design and performance requirements."

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

This document does not describe a study involving human experts establishing ground truth for a test set. The evaluation is focused on the physical and biological performance of the medical device itself through standardized engineering and biocompatibility tests, and an animal model.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Not applicable. This was not a study involving human interpretation or adjudication of results. The acceptance criteria were met based on direct measurements and observations during 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

Not applicable. This is a medical device (wire guides) for diagnostic and interventional procedures, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. Therefore, no MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers and AI assistance was conducted or would be relevant.

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

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used

The "ground truth" for the performance of the device was established by:

• Standardized Test Methods: Adherence to established international standards (BS EN ISO 11070:2014, BS EN ISO 10993-1:2009) and FDA guidance documents (FDA Coronary and Cerebrovascular Guidewire Guidance (1995)).
• Pre-determined Acceptance Criteria: Specific criteria were set for each test, and the device's performance was compared against these criteria.
• Acute Performance Evaluation in an Animal Model: This constitutes a form of "ground truth" reflecting real-world physiological conditions for device functionality.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for this type of device submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

Fixed Core Wire Guides are intended to facilitate placement of devices used during diagnostic and interventional procedures.

The Fixed Core Wire Guides, subject of this submission, are Class II devices according to 21 CFR §870.1330; product code DQX (Wire, Guide, Catheter). The subject device consists of a core mandril, a spring coil anchored over the mandril, and an inner safety wire. The Fixed Core Wire Guides are available with outside diameters ranging from 0.015 inches to 0.052 inches and lengths ranging from 15 centimeters to 480 centimeters. The flexible tip portion of the wire guides is either straight or J-tipped. The Fixed Core Wire Guides will be uncoated or coated with Polytetrafluoro-ethylene (PTFE). The Fixed Core Wire Guides are packaged, sterile devices intended for single use.

The document describes the premarket notification (510(k)) for the Fixed Core Wire Guides. However, it does not pertain to an AI/ML medical device. Therefore, much of the information requested in your prompt (e.g., patient data, training/test sets, expert consensus, MRMC studies, standalone performance, etc.) is not applicable to this submission, as it is for a physical medical device (wire guides).

The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to the various engineering and biological tests conducted on the physical device.

Here's an attempt to answer the prompt based on the provided document, acknowledging the non-AI nature of the device:

Device: Fixed Core Wire Guides (K171764)
Device Type: Physical Medical Device (Catheter Guide Wire)
Regulation: 21 CFR 870.1330 (Catheter Guide Wire)

Given that this is a 510(k) submission for a physical medical device (wire guide) and not an AI/ML-driven device, many of the standard questions regarding AI/ML acceptance criteria and study design are not relevant or applicable. The "acceptance criteria" here refer to the passing thresholds for various physical and biological performance tests.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document does not provide specific quantitative acceptance criteria values or detailed performance results for each test. Instead, it states that "The pre-determined acceptance criteria were met" for all listed tests.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

For a physical device, "sample size" typically refers to the number of device units tested. The document does not specify the exact sample sizes (number of units) used for each of the performance tests (e.g., biocompatibility samples, number of wires for tensile testing, etc.).

• Data Provenance: The tests are laboratory and animal studies, not human clinical data.
  • Biocompatibility, Corrosion, Flexing, Fracture, Tensile, Tip Flexibility, Torque Strength: Performed in a laboratory setting.
  • Acute Performance Evaluation: Performed in an animal model.
• Retrospective or Prospective: These would be considered prospective tests performed specifically for this 510(k) submission.

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

This question is not applicable. For physical device performance testing, "ground truth" is established by the test procedures themselves (e.g., measuring force, observing breakage, biological reactions) and assessed by qualified laboratory personnel and engineers, not clinical experts for diagnostic accuracy.

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

Not applicable. This concept is relevant for human interpretation of data, not for material or mechanical performance testing of a physical device.

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

Not applicable. This is for AI/ML devices where human readers interact with AI. This device is a physical wire guide.

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

Not applicable. This pertains to AI/ML software performance.

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

For this physical device, the "ground truth" for demonstrating performance is derived from:

• Standardized industry and international test methods (e.g., ISO, FDA guidance documents).
• Quantitative measurements (e.g., force, elongation, cycles to failure).
• Qualitative observations (e.g., absence of corrosion, successful access in animal model).
• Biocompatibility assessments based on established biological endpoints.

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device does not involve a "training set" in the context of AI/ML or statistical modeling from patient data. The "training" for such a device would be the design and manufacturing processes.

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

Not applicable. See point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device