Search Results

The TracStar LDP Large Distal Platform is indicated for the introduction of interventional devices into the peripheral, coronary, and neuro vasculature.

The Zoom 88 Large Distal Platform is indicated for the introduction of interventional devices into the peripheral, coronary, and neuro vasculature.

The Imperative Care Large Distal Platform (LDP) Catheters include the TracStar™ LDP Large Distal Platform and Zoom™ 88 Large Distal Platform. The LDP Catheters are 0.038" diameter or smaller guidewire compatible single lumen guide catheters that provide access to peripheral, coronary and neuro vasculature. The catheters are comprised of a hollow cylindrical tube bonded at the proximal end to a standard luer fitting. The wall of the tube is constructed using a combination of metal coils/braids and medical grade polymers. The distal section of each catheter has a hydrophilic coating to enhance tracking through tortuous vasculature. An angled distal soft tip facilitates smooth tracking past vessel branches. A radiopaque marker provides visual confirmation of the distal tip location under fluoroscopy. LDP Catheters have an inner diameter of 0.088" (6F compatible), and a maximum outer diameter of 0.110". The LDP guide catheters are packaged with a rotating hemostasis valve (RHV) that is attached to the proximal luer to help maintain hemostasis.

This document describes the premarket notification for the Imperative Care TracStar LDP Large Distal Platform and Zoom 88 Large Distal Platform, which are guide catheters. The submission is based on substantial equivalence to predicate devices, meaning extensive new studies were not required. The provided text details the acceptance criteria and study findings for this medical device.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

The document does not explicitly state the specific sample sizes (number of units tested) for each individual bench and laboratory test. It generally refers to "bench and laboratory (in-vitro) testing." The data provenance is in-vitro, conducted in a laboratory setting. There is no information regarding country of origin of the data or if it was retrospective or prospective, as these terms typically apply to clinical studies with human participants.

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

This information is not provided. For performance testing of a medical device like a catheter, "ground truth" is typically established by physical measurements, engineering specifications, and adherence to recognized standards (like ISO 10555-1), rather than expert consensus on interpretive data.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not applicable and not provided. Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation of data (e.g., imaging) by multiple readers to resolve discrepancies. The performance tests described here are objective, pass/fail engineering tests.

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. The submission is for a medical device (catheter) and relies on bench and laboratory testing for substantial equivalence, not comparative clinical effectiveness with human readers.

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

This question is not applicable to the device described. The TracStar LDP Large Distal Platform and Zoom 88 Large Distal Platform are physical guide catheters, not algorithms or AI software. Therefore, there is no "algorithm only" or "human-in-the-loop" performance to report.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

For the bench and laboratory tests, the "ground truth" is based on pre-defined engineering specifications and performance standards, particularly ISO 10555-1 for catheters. The results are objective measurements against these established criteria, leading to a "Pass" or "Fail" outcome.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable. The device is a physical catheter, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a training set. The substantial equivalence pathway relies on demonstrating that the new device performs similarly to a predicate device through bench testing, not on learning from a dataset.

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

This information is not applicable, as there is no training set for a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Route 92 Medical 088 Access System, 110 cm, is indicated for use with compatible guide catheters in facilitating the insertion and guidance of microcatheters into a selected blood vessel in the neurovascular system.

The Route 92 Medical 088 Access System, 110 cm, is comprised of a Support Catheter and a Delivery Catheter. The distal portion of the Support Catheter is a single-lumen, variable stiffness catheter. Like the predicate device, the proximal portion is a stainless-steel control wire. The Delivery Catheter is a hubbed, single-lumen variable stiffness catheter. Both catheters are hydrophilically coated. The Route 92 Medical Access System, 110 cm, is intended for use with compatible guide catheters in facilitating the insertion and guidance of microcatheters into a selected blood vessel in the neurovascular system. The devices are provided sterile and non-pyrogenic and are intended for single use only.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and supporting studies for the Route 92 Medical 088 Access System, 110 cm:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document outlines performance criteria in two main sections: Biocompatibility Testing and Performance Testing. For both, the acceptance criterion is implicitly "PASS" meaning the device met pre-determined criteria for each test. Specific quantitative acceptance criteria are not detailed in this summary.

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

The document states "All samples met the pre-determined acceptance criteria" for various performance tests, but does not specify the exact sample size for any of the individual tests. The provenance of the data (e.g., country of origin, retrospective or prospective) is also not provided. Many tests mention adherence to ISO standards, implying controlled laboratory conditions, but details about the test setting are not available. The Biocompatibility and Performance tests are "Non-Clinical Testing."

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

This information is not provided as the tests conducted are primarily non-clinical, mechanical, and material-based, not involving human interpretation of medical images or patient outcomes that would typically require expert ground truth establishment in that manner. For the "Simulated Use Testing," "Radiopacity," and "Contrast Delivery," and "In Vivo Thromboresistance" which involve models and animals, the experts involved in conducting and evaluating these tests are not specified.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

An adjudication method is not applicable and therefore not mentioned, as the tests are primarily objective physical and chemical characterizations, rather than assessments requiring human judgment or consensus from multiple reviewers for a "ground truth" determination.

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

No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not conducted. This document describes a 510(k) submission for a medical device (catheter system), not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool. Therefore, human reader performance with or without AI assistance is not relevant to this submission.

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

No, a standalone algorithm performance study was not done. This device is a physical medical instrument, not an algorithm or software.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

For the non-clinical tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the specifications and acceptable ranges established by industry standards (e.g., ISO) and the manufacturer's pre-determined acceptance criteria. For "Simulated Use Testing," "Radiopacity," "Contrast Delivery," and "In Vivo Thromboresistance," the ground truth would be based on direct observation and measurement within the respective models (neurovascular model, animal model), demonstrating the device's functional integrity and performance as intended. No human pathology, outcomes data, or expert consensus in the medical diagnostic sense is mentioned as ground truth.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

This information is not applicable as this is a physical medical device, not an AI model requiring a training set.

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

This information is not applicable as this is a physical medical device, not an AI model requiring a training set and associated ground truth.

Ask a specific question about this device