Search Results

This product is intended to direct a catheter to the desired anatomical vasculature (excluding coronary and cerebral vessels).

The CROSSLOOP is steerable guide wire with a maximum diameter of 0.018 inches (0.46 mm) and available in various lengths of 200 cm, 235 cm and 300 cm. The CROSSLOOP consists of a stainless-steel (SUS) core wire with a Pt-Ni alloy coil, soldered with Au-Sn solder. The distal tip is loop-structured. The coil is radiopaque to achieve visibility and can be made to bend easily to accommodate vessel tortuosity. A silicone and hydrophilic coating are applied to the distal portion of the guide wire. A hydrophobic coating (PTFE) is applied to proximal portion. The purpose of these surface coatings is to provide lubricity when the guide wire is passed through percutaneous catheters.

The provided text describes a 510(k) premarket notification for a medical device called "CROSSLOOP," a catheter guide wire. This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, rather than proving a new device's absolute safety and effectiveness through extensive clinical trials as would be required for a PMA (Premarket Approval Application).

Therefore, the information you're asking for, such as "acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria," "sample size for the test set," "number of experts used to establish ground truth," "adjudication method," "MRMC comparative effectiveness study," "standalone performance," "type of ground truth," "sample size for the training set," and "how the ground truth for the training set was established," are not directly applicable or available in this document.

This 510(k) summary focuses on non-clinical testing/performance data and biocompatibility to demonstrate that the device is substantially equivalent to existing cleared devices, not that it independently proves clinical efficacy or diagnostic accuracy (as would be the case for an AI-powered diagnostic device, for example).

Here's how to address your points based on the provided text:

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

The document states: "The in vitro bench tests demonstrated the CROSSLOOP met all acceptance criteria and performed similarly to the predicate and reference devices." However, it does not provide a table specifying the precise acceptance criteria or quantitative performance results for each test. It only lists the types of non-clinical tests performed:

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

• Sample Size: Not specified for any of the non-clinical tests.
• Data Provenance: The tests are "in vitro bench tests" and "biocompatibility" tests. The manufacturer is ASAHI INTECC CO., LTD. whose global headquarters and R&D center are in Japan. The specific country where the testing was performed is not explicitly stated, but it's likely linked to the manufacturer's R&D facilities. These are laboratory tests, not clinical data, so terms like "retrospective" or "prospective" don't apply in the common clinical sense.

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 applicable to this type of device and submission. "Ground truth" established by experts (like radiologists for imaging devices) is relevant for AI/ML-powered diagnostic tools or clinical studies, neither of which are described here. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical tests would be the established engineering and materials science standards and specifications.

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

This is not applicable. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical trials involving human observation or interpretation, especially with imaging reads. For bench testing, results are typically quantitative measurements compared against predefined engineering specifications.

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

This is not applicable. An MRMC study is designed for AI-assisted diagnostic devices to assess the impact of AI on human reader performance. The "CROSSLOOP" is a physical medical device (catheter guide wire), not an AI/ML software tool.

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

This is not applicable. This question refers to the performance of an AI algorithm in isolation. The CROSSLOOP is a physical medical device.

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

For a physical device like a guide wire, the "ground truth" for non-clinical testing refers to pre-defined engineering specifications, material properties, and performance standards (e.g., tensile strength required to withstand certain forces, flexibility within a specified range, biocompatibility per ISO standards). This is not derived from expert consensus on clinical cases, pathology, or outcomes data, but rather from material science and mechanical engineering principles.

8. The sample size for the training set

This is not applicable. "Training set" refers to data used to train AI/ML models. This device is not an AI/ML product.

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

This is not applicable for the same reason as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

PCI Guide Wires are intended to facilitate the placement of balloon dilatation catheters during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA).

The PCI Guide Wires are not intended for use in the neurovasculature.

The basic structure of the MINAMO blue / viola consists of a hybrid stainless steel and nitinol (Ni-Ti) core wire, with a stainless steel distal inner rope coil. Surrounding the inner rope coil and the distal core wire is a radiopaque platinum nickel / stainless steel outer coil. The outer and inner coils are soldered to the tapered core wire. A similar coil design is used with other ASAHI guide wires, such as the predicate MINAMO (K190176). In addition, coatings are applied on the surface of the product. The coil portion is coated with a silicone and hydrophilic coating. The proximal side of the core wire is coated with PFA, silicone and PTFE.

The nominal outer diameter of the MINAMO is 0.36 mm. The devices are available in three lengths: 190 cm, 235 cm and 300 cm.

The MINAMO blue / viola radiopaque distal tip enables the user to view the position of the tip under X-ray fluoroscopy.

All sizes are available with a straight, pre-shape, and J-shape design.

The provided text focuses on the 510(k) premarket notification for the MINAMO blue and MINAMO viola guide wires. It describes the device, compares it to predicate and reference devices, and outlines the non-clinical and biocompatibility testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

However, the text does not contain the specific information requested regarding acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets these criteria in the context of an AI/ML-enabled medical device.

The document states that the MINAMO blue and MINAMO viola are catheter guide wires, which are physical medical devices, not AI/ML-enabled software devices. Therefore, the questions related to:

• AI/ML performance metrics (e.g., Sensitivity, Specificity, AUC)
• Sample sizes for test sets in an AI/ML context
• Number of experts for ground truth establishment
• Adjudication methods
• Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies
• Standalone AI performance
• Training set sample sizes and ground truth establishment for training data

are not applicable to the submitted document as it describes a traditional medical device (guide wire) and not an AI/ML product.

The document focuses on demonstrating the substantial equivalence of the guide wires to previously cleared predicate devices through:

• Indications for Use: Same as the predicate.
• Technological Characteristics: Similar materials, design, operating principle, and sterilization.
• Non-Clinical Testing/Performance Data: Bench tests following FDA guidance, demonstrating performance similar to predicate devices and meeting acceptance criteria for physical and mechanical properties (e.g., tensile strength, torque strength, tip flexibility, coating integrity, lubricity, corrosion resistance, kink resistance, radiopacity, dimensional verification, simulated use).
• Biocompatibility: In accordance with ISO 10993.

Based on the provided text, here's what can be extracted and what cannot:

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

The document states: "The in vitro bench tests demonstrated that the MINAMO blue and MINAMO viola met all acceptance criteria and performed similarly to the predicate devices."
However, the specific numerical acceptance criteria and the quantified reported device performance values are NOT provided in the document. It only lists the types of tests performed.

Types of Performance Tests (Implied Acceptance Criteria for these properties):

• Tensile Strength
• Torque Strength
• Torqueability
• Tip Flexibility
• Coating Integrity
• Lubricity
• Visual Inspection
• Corrosion Resistance
• Kink Resistance
• Radiopacity
• Dimensional Verification
• Simulated use in a clinically relevant mode
• Coating Integrity/Particulate Evaluation in a clinically relevant mode

Biocompatibility Tests (Implied Acceptance Criteria: Non-cytotoxic, Non-sensitizer, Non-irritant, Non-toxic, Non-pyrogenic, Non-hemolytic, Not an activator, Thromboresistant):

For all other points (2-9), the information is NOT applicable to this document as it does not describe an AI/ML-enabled device or an AI/ML study.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable (not an AI/ML study). The document refers to "bench testing" and "in vitro" tests, implying physical samples of the guide wire.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable (not an AI/ML study requiring expert review of data).
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
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 (not an AI/ML study).
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): For the physical device, the "ground truth" would be established by standardized testing protocols and measurements of physical properties. For biocompatibility, it's based on ISO 10993 standards and the biological responses observed in the tests (e.g., no cellular reactivity, no delayed dermal contact sensitization).
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable (no AI model).
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable (no AI model).

Ask a specific question about this device