Search Results

The Millipede 088 Access Catheter is indicated for use in facilitating the insertion and guidance of microcatheters into a selected blood vessel in the neurovasculature.

The Millipede 088 Access Catheter consists of the catheter, a rotating hemostasis valve (RHV) and a valve crossing tool. The catheter, RHV and valve crossing tool are provided sterile. They are sterilized by ethylene oxide (EO).

The Millipede 088 Access Catheter is a single lumen, coil-reinforced, variable stiffness catheter. The distal segment has a hydrophilic coating for navigation through the vasculature. The catheter has a radiopaque marker located at its distal end for visualization under fluoroscopy. The valve crossing tool is used to open the valve of the access sheath and to facilitate insertion of the Millipede 088 Access Catheter through the access sheath without damage. The RHV is assembled onto the hub of the Millipede 088 Access Catheter and is used to maintain hemostasis during infusion of saline and contrast agent and insertion of other devices through the Millipede 088 Access Catheter.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Millipede 088 Access Catheter. This type of regulatory submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and a standalone clinical study to prove the device meets those criteria.

Therefore, the document does not contain the information requested in points 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9, and only partially addresses points 1, 6, and 7.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted:

1. Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document lists various performance tests and their conclusions, indicating that the device met "established specifications" or was "suitable for its intended use." However, the specific quantitative acceptance criteria for each test are not provided. The reported device performance is qualitative rather than quantitative in most cases.

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

The document does not specify the sample sizes for the individual performance tests beyond implicitly suggesting multiple samples were tested (e.g., "test specimens," "test articles"). For the Animal Testing, it states "two studies in a porcine model."

The data provenance for the in vitro and animal studies isn't explicitly stated beyond "Good Laboratory Practices" for the animal studies, which is a standard of conduct rather than a geographic origin. No human data is presented.

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 information is not provided as the submission relies on objective performance testing, biocompatibility studies, and animal studies rather than expert-derived ground truth from human data for this type of device.

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

Not applicable. The evaluation methods described are objective performance tests and animal studies, not human data requiring expert adjudication.

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 device is an access catheter, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, an MRMC study or AI assistance is not relevant to its evaluation.

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

Yes, the performance testing described (mechanical, dimensional, coating integrity, etc.) and the animal studies represent "standalone" evaluations of the device's physical and functional properties without human interpretation of data in a clinical context.

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

For the performance and biocompatibility tests, the "ground truth" is defined by the established specifications, relevant ISO standards, and comparison to control devices or predicate devices. For example:

• "The device met established specifications."
• "The test article is non-cytotoxic."
• "The particulate size and count were similar to control devices."
• "The radiopacity of the Millipede 088 Access Catheter was similar to a control device."
• For animal testing, "Usability, radiopacity, thromboresistance, and vessel injury were assessed," and "The results for the subject device were comparable to a control device."

8. The sample size for the training set

Not applicable. This device is a medical catheter and does not involve a "training set" in the context of machine learning or AI. Its performance is evaluated through engineering and biological testing.

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

Not applicable (as above).

Ask a specific question about this device

1. The Trevo Retriever is indicated for use to restore blood flow in the neurovasculature by removing thrombus for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke to reduce disability in patients with a persistent, proximal anterior circulation, large vessel occlusion, and smaller core infarcts who have first received intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV t-PA). Endovascular therapy with the device should start within 6 hours of symptom onset.
2. The Trevo Retriever is intended to restore blood flow in the neurovasculature by removing thrombus in patients experiencing ischemic stroke within 8 hours of symptom onset. Patients who are ineligible for intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV t-PA) or who fail IV t-PA therapy are candidates for treatment.
3. The Trevo Retriever is indicated for use to restore blood flow in the neurovasculature by removing thrombus for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke to reduce disability in patients with a persistent, proximal anterior circulation, large vessel occlusion of the internal carotid artely (ICA) or middle cerebral artely (MCA)-Ml segments with smaller core infarcts (0-50 cc for age

The Trevo Retriever consists of a flexible, tapered core wire with a shaped section at the distal end. Platinum markers at the distal end allow fluoroscopic visualization. In addition, the shaped section is also radiopaque. Retriever dimensions are indicated on product label. The Retriever delivery wire has a hydrophilic coating on the distal 101cm length to reduce friction during use. The Retriever has a shaft marker to indicate proximity of Retriever tip relative to Microcatheter tip. A Torque Device is provided with the Retriever to facilitate manipulation and retrieval. The Retriever comes preloaded in an insertion tool to introduce the Retriever into a Microcatheter.

The provided document is a 510(k) summary for the Trevo NXT ProVue Retriever, a neurovascular mechanical thrombectomy device. It describes the device, its intended use, and a comparison to predicate devices, primarily focusing on non-clinical performance and biocompatibility data to establish substantial equivalence.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and the Reported Device Performance:

The document provides a table of various performance tests, their methods, and conclusions. The acceptance criteria themselves are explicitly stated for biocompatibility tests, but for performance tests, the conclusion is generally "meets acceptance criteria," implying that specific thresholds were defined internally and met.

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

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly mentioned for each specific performance test. The design validation states "All Users observed that the Trevo NXT ProVue Retrievers successfully met all the design attribute evaluations...". For biocompatibility, standard ISO tests were performed, which usually involve specific numbers of samples or animals as per the standard.
• Data Provenance: The studies are non-clinical (bench testing and in vitro simulated-use studies) and biocompatibility tests. They are not clinical studies involving human patient data, so concepts like country of origin or retrospective/prospective are not applicable in this context. The simulated-use studies were conducted internally for device verification and validation.

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

• Number of Experts: Not explicitly stated. The design validation study mentions "Users evaluated the device in a simulated use tortuous anatomical model". It doesn't specify if these "Users" are experts in establishing ground truth, nor their number or qualifications as one would typically see in a clinical study where expert consensus might establish ground truth for a diagnostic device. In this context of a mechanical device, performance is evaluated against defined physical and functional criteria rather than expert interpretation.

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

• Not applicable as this is a device performance study focusing on physical and functional attributes, not a study requiring adjudication of clinical outcomes or interpretations.

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 non-clinical evaluation of a mechanical thrombectomy device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or decision support system.

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

• Not applicable. This is a mechanical device, not an algorithm.

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

• For performance testing, the "ground truth" (or reference standard) is based on defined engineering specifications, industry standards (e.g., ISO, ASTM), and predetermined functional requirements. For example, a successful test means the device's dimension falls within a specified range, or it withstands a certain force, or it shows no damage after simulated use.
• For biocompatibility testing, the ground truth is established by the criteria outlined in recognized international standards (ISO 10993-x), which define acceptable biological responses (e.g., hemolysis ≤ 5%, not a sensitizer).

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not applicable. This is a non-clinical evaluation of a mechanical thrombectomy device, not a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

• Not applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device