Search Filters

Search Results

Found 2 results

510(k) Data Aggregation

    K Number
    K220075
    Date Cleared
    2022-04-19

    (99 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    870.1330
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K193576

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use

    The Spartan Center Wire™ is indicated for general intravascular use in the peripheral vasculature. It can be deployed into the vessel to facilitate the selective placement of diagnostic or therapeutic catheters.

    The device is not intended for use in the coronary or neuro vasculature.

    Device Description

    The Spartan Center Wire™ is a stabilizing exchange wire designed for temporary assistance in catheter exchange. The device is comprised of a tubular mesh tip attached to a pusher wire of adequate length to accommodate the exchanging of catheters commonly used for access, stabilization, or aspiration. The pusher wire diameter is 0.015" (0.38 mm) with length 350 cm to allow for the exchange of therapeutic devices without the use of extension wires or other exchange devices. The distal end is a permanently attached self-expanding mesh that is deployed out of an introducer sheath and into the vessel where it conforms to the vessel wall. There are 3 distal radiopaque markers and 1 proximal radiopaque marker visible under fluoroscopy. The deployed and stable mesh ensures that the wire is not displaced from the desired position and can be advantageously utilized in multiple exchanges or re-positioning of catheters. The Spartan Center Wire™ is offered in 2 available sizes to accommodate common vascular sizing. There is a 4 mm diameter basket with 15 mm useable length and a 6 mm basket with 30 mm useable length. Both sizes are compatible with catheters that have a minimum I.D. of 0.027".

    AI/ML Overview

    The provided text describes the performance data for the Spartan Center Wire™ medical device, primarily focusing on bench testing, biocompatibility, sterilization, pyrogenicity, shelf life, and animal studies. However, it does not contain information about acceptance criteria or studies related to an AI/ML-driven device's performance in a diagnostic context, MRMC studies, or multi-reader studies. The device in question is a physical catheter guidewire, not a medical AI software.

    Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information regarding acceptance criteria and performance of an AI/ML device from the provided text. The prompt asks for details that are not present in the document.

    The document explicitly states: "No clinical testing was conducted." and "No torque device is needed or supplied with the Spartan Center Wire™." This reinforces that the evaluation is for a physical device, not an AI/ML software.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    K Number
    K203358
    Date Cleared
    2021-03-01

    (105 days)

    Product Code
    Regulation Number
    882.5600
    Reference & Predicate Devices
    Why did this record match?
    Reference Devices :

    K193576

    AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
    Intended Use
    1. The Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device 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 plasogen activator (IV t-PA). Endovascular therapy with the device should be started within 6 hours of symptom onset.

    2. The Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device is indicated to restore blood flow by removing thrombus from a large intracranial vessel in patients experiencing ischemic stroke within 8 hours of symptom onset. Patients who are ineligible for IV t-PA or who fail IV t-PA therapy are candidates for treatment.

    3. The Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device 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 artery (ICA) or middle cerebral artery (MCA)-M1 segments with smaller core infarcts (

    Device Description

    The subject 3 mm Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device is designed to restore blood flow in patients experiencing ischemic stroke due to large intracranial vessel occlusion. The subject 3 mm Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device is designed for use in the neurovasculature such as the Internal Carotid Artery (ICA), M1 and M2 segments of the middle cerebral artery, basilar, and the vertebral arteries. The distal nitinol portion of the subject 3 mm Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device facilitates clot retrieval and has Platinum/Iridium radiopaque markers on the proximal and distal ends. The subject 3 mm Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device also features radiopaque markers along the circumference of the working length of the devices are supplied sterile and are intended for single- use only.

    AI/ML Overview

    The Solitaire X Revascularization Device is designed to restore blood flow by removing thrombus in patients experiencing ischemic stroke. The device, specifically the 3mm variant, underwent several tests to demonstrate its performance and safety, leading to its substantial equivalence determination.

    Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and supporting studies:

    1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

    TestAcceptance CriteriaReported Device Performance
    Delivery ForceVerified maximum delivery force through microcatheters to the M2 section of a representative tortuous anatomical model.Acceptance criteria met
    Resheathing TestVerified that the device is able to be resheathed into microcatheters in the M2 section of a representative tortuous anatomical model.Acceptance criteria met
    System LengthsDevice system length measured from the proximal end of the pushwire to the proximal end of the keyhole marker band and total system length in sheath.Acceptance criteria met
    Durability and Reusability TestVerified that the device is able to be reliably deployed and resheathed into a microcatheter for four times for four passes in a clinically relevant tortuosity model.Acceptance criteria met
    System Tensile Strength TestPerformed following simulated use via delivery through a microcatheter in a clinically relevant tortuosity model.Acceptance criteria met
    Distal and Body Marker Tensile TestPerformed following simulated use via delivery through a microcatheter in a clinically relevant tortuosity model.Acceptance criteria met
    Torque TestVerified if the stent joint can withstand a minimum of one rotation in a clinically relevant tortuosity model.Acceptance criteria met
    Radial Outward Force (ROF)Measured to specification.Acceptance criteria met
    Stent Outer DiameterAverage device diameter measured post-simulated use testing.Acceptance criteria met
    Particulate TestParticulates generated during simulated use (including multiple deployment cycling).Acceptance criteria met
    Fluorosafe Marker DistanceDistance from the distal tip of the device subassembly to the distal end of the fluorosafe marker in-sheath is measured.Acceptance criteria met
    BiocompatibilityA risk-based approach assessing the materials and manufacturing of the introducer sheath indicated no change in biocompatibility profile.Minor material differences in introducer sheath concluded not to change biocompatibility profile.
    Animal Study Safety and UsabilityDemonstrated safety and usability in a porcine model at sub-acute and 30-day (chronic) time points.Safety and usability results suggest substantial equivalence to the predicate device.
    Clinical Study (Retrospective Analysis)Evaluation of vessel sizes using existing registry data to support substantial equivalence.Retrospective analysis of STRATIS registry data performed.

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

    The document mentions a retrospective analysis of vessel sizes using the STRATIS registry data as a "clinical" study to support substantial equivalence. While it explicitly states this, it does not provide the sample size of this retrospective analysis.

    • Data Provenance: The STRATIS registry data was "previously submitted in K193576," suggesting it's existing, likely multi-center, clinical trial or registry data. The country of origin is not specified but is likely international, given the nature of major stroke registries. It is retrospective.

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

    The document does not provide information on the number of experts used or their qualifications for establishing ground truth for the retrospective analysis of vessel sizes. Given it's a "retrospective analysis of vessel sizes," the ground truth would likely be based on imaging reports and clinical assessments already documented in the STRATIS registry by the original clinicians and radiologists involved in the patient care and data collection.

    4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

    The document does not specify an adjudication method for the retrospective analysis. As it relies on existing registry data, the "ground truth" would implicitly be the clinical diagnoses and measurements recorded at the time of the original study or patient care within the STRATIS registry.

    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:

    The document does not describe an MRMC comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with or without AI assistance. The described "clinical" study is a retrospective analysis of vessel sizes, not an evaluation of AI assistance for human readers.

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

    The document does not describe a standalone performance study of an algorithm. The Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device is a physical mechanical thrombectomy device, not an AI or software algorithm. The "clinical" study mentioned is a retrospective analysis of vessel sizes, likely performed to understand the distribution of vessel sizes relevant to the device's application, rather than to evaluate an algorithm's performance.

    7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

    For the retrospective analysis, the ground truth would inherently be

    • Imaging measurements and clinical diagnoses documented within the STRATIS registry data. This would include measurements of vessel sizes and characterization of occlusions based on imaging (e.g., CTA, MRA) and patient outcomes. It's a form of outcomes data and expert-reported imaging findings from the original clinical context.

    8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

    The document does not mention a training set for an algorithm. The Solitaire™ X Revascularization Device is a physical medical device, not a machine learning model that requires training data.

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

    As there is no mention of a training set for an algorithm, this question is not applicable.

    Ask a Question

    Ask a specific question about this device

    Page 1 of 1