Search Results

The Guidant Syncrus™ Internal Cardioversion System is indicated for use in post-operative cardiac surgery patients who require temporary atrial or ventricular pacing/sensing and/or atrial cardioversion.

The Syncrus Heart Wires and Connectors are used for atrial and ventricular pacing and electrocardiogram sensing to diagnosis and treat atrial (type I) flutter and some forms of tachycardia. The wires are also used to treat post-operative arrhythmias, particularly atrial fibrillation, when used in conjunction with the Syncrus Cardioversion Extension Cable and Syncrus External Defibrillator Interface Module (EDIM). The EDIM is a passive device. The EDIM when used with a compatible external monophasic defibrillator reduces the energy to approximately 3% and delivers the low-energy cardioversion shock directly to the atria. The cardioversion is achieved by delivering a synchronized electrical pulse of approximately 11.1 Joules or less to the atrial chambers of the heart. There are three types of Heart Wires:

• A tripolar atrial wire, capable of pacing and sensing, and cardioversion, when used in conjunction with the unipolar wire.
• A unipolar atrial wire, capable of cardioversion when used in conjunction with the cardioversion electrode on the tripolar wire.
• A bipolar ventricular wire, capable of pacing and sensing.
  The wires are comprised of curved needle(s), attached to lead(s) on the proximal end. The wires are insulated for long length. A straight needle is attached to the leads on the distal end of the wires. Cardioversion connectors are provided that attach to the appropriate heart wire leads. Pacing connector pins are pre-assembled onto the appropriate heart wire leads.
  The Syncrus Heart Wires are intended to be affixed to the surfaces of their respective heart chambers, during or immediately following open-heart surgery, before the median sternotomy is closed. Temporary pacing heart wires are routinely implanted in a similar manner. The unipolar atrial wire is placed on the left atrium, the tripolar atrial wire is placed on the right atrium, and the bipolar ventricular wire is placed on either ventricle. If all of the Heart Wires are implanted, the atrial and ventricular temporary sensing and pacing ability can be used, and only if the patient develops post-operative AF would the cardioversion feature be used. Both the unipolar atrial wire and the tripolar atrial wires are required in order to perform a cardioversion. When only the capability to treat post-operative AF is desired, the ventricular wire is not required.
  When the pacing feature is used, the pacing lead is inserted into the myocardial tissue of the atrium using the curved needles. Location and pattern of the lead is not critical, as the lead simply requires tissue contact. The "bullet" (define) on the ground wire is then pulled through the hole formed by the curved needle, and is thus buried in the myocardial wall.

The provided text describes a medical device called the Syncrus™ Internal Cardioversion System and its intended use, but it does not contain detailed information about specific acceptance criteria or the study data that "proves" the device meets these criteria in the format requested.

The document is a 510(k) summary, which focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing a detailed report of performance against specific, quantifiable acceptance criteria.

Here's what can be extracted and what is missing, based on your request:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

• Acceptance Criteria: Not explicitly stated as quantifiable metrics. The document broadly states that "All necessary testing was performed on the Guidant Syncrus System to ensure that the system is substantially equivalent to the predicate devices and to ensure that the device is safe and effective."

• Reported Device Performance:

  • Low-energy cardioversion shock: "approximately 11.1 Joules or less to the atrial chambers of the heart."
  • Energy Reduction: When used with the EDIM, a compatible external monophasic defibrillator "reduces the energy to approximately 3%."

  Therefore, a table cannot be fully generated as requested due to the lack of specific, quantifiable acceptance criteria and corresponding detailed performance metrics.

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

• Sample Size: Not specified.
• Data Provenance: Not specified (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). The document only mentions "All necessary testing was performed."

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

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified.

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

• Adjudication Method: Not specified.

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:

• MRMC Study: Not applicable. This device is a hardware system for pacing, sensing, and cardioversion, not an AI-assisted diagnostic or interpretative tool.

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

• Standalone Performance: Not applicable. This device is a medical device requiring human intervention for implantation and operation, not an algorithm.

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

• Type of Ground Truth: Not explicitly stated. The testing would likely involve technical performance verification (e.g., electrical output, material biocompatibility, mechanical integrity) and potentially some animal or limited human subject testing to confirm physiological response, but the document does not detail this. The "ground truth" would be related to meeting established engineering and medical device standards.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Training Set Sample Size: Not applicable. This is a hardware device, not an AI/machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

• Ground Truth for Training Set: Not applicable, as it's a hardware device.

Summary of what is present:

• Device Name: Syncrus™ Internal Cardioversion System
• Intended Use: For use in post-operative cardiac surgery patients who require temporary atrial or ventricular pacing/sensing and/or atrial cardioversion.
• Substantial Equivalence: Demonstrated against Medtronic Pacing & Sensing Wires (Model 6500), Physio-Control Internal Paddles (accessory to LifePak 9 External Defibrillator), and the R2 Cable Adapter.
• Performance Claim: Delivers a synchronized electrical pulse of approximately 11.1 Joules or less for cardioversion. Reduces external defibrillator energy to approximately 3% when used with EDIM.
• Conclusion: "All necessary testing was performed... to ensure that the system is substantially equivalent... and to ensure that the device is safe and effective..."

Key Takeaway: The provided document is a regulatory submission summary focused on substantial equivalence rather than a detailed performance study with explicit acceptance criteria and corresponding granular data as would be found in a clinical trial report or a comprehensive engineering validation.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Model 6495 bipolar temporary myocardial pacing lead is designed for temporary atrial and ventricular pacing and sensing, for a maximum of 7 days, during and after cardiac surgery. The Model 6495 bipolar temporary myocardial pacing lead is intended for SINGLE USE ONLY.

The bipolar temporary myocardial pacing wire, Model 6495 consists of a distal electrode, and a coaxial conductor which are crimped together. A blue polypropylene fiber proximally coiled (flattered coil) for fixation of the lead is attached to the distal electrode and terminated in an atraumatic curved needle. An atraumatic breakaway chest needle at the other end of the conductor wire permits running the lead through the chest wall. Proximal to the chest needle is a connector ring crimped to the conductor wire. After removal of the pacing wire, which is performed by gentle traction, no part of the wire remains in the body.

The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for the Medtronic Model 6495 Bipolar Temporary Myocardial Pacing Wire. This submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than providing detailed acceptance criteria and a study to prove performance as would be seen for novel devices or software.

Here's a breakdown based on the information provided:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission doesn't explicitly define numerical acceptance criteria for "device performance" in terms of clinical outcomes or specific thresholds for functionality. Instead, it relies on demonstrating that the device meets "specified requirements" through integrity testing and is substantially equivalent to existing, legally marketed predicate devices.

Note: The specific "specified requirements" (e.g., exact pull strength values, dimensional tolerances) are not detailed in this summary document.

2. Sample Size for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The document does not specify the sample size used for the device integrity testing (e.g., how many units were subjected to pull strength or flex life tests). It also does not provide information on the data provenance in terms of country of origin or whether the tests were retrospective or prospective, as these are engineering tests on the device itself, not clinical data.

Summary:

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not specified.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of device integrity tests; these are laboratory engineering tests.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

This information is not applicable to this type of 510(k) submission. The "ground truth" here is the device's adherence to engineering specifications and comparison to predicate device characteristics. Experts typically establish ground truth in clinical studies involving interpretation (e.g., radiologists for imaging, pathologists for tissue samples), which is not the nature of the presented device integrity testing.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

Adjudication methods (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) are typically used in clinical studies where expert disagreement on ground truth needs to be resolved. This is not relevant for the device integrity testing described, as the tests (e.g., pull strength, electrical verification) have objective pass/fail criteria based on engineering specifications.

5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study

No MRMC study was conducted or mentioned. This is a medical device (pacing wire), not an AI/software device that assists human readers.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance

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

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

The "ground truth" for the device integrity testing was based on engineering specifications and established test methodologies to ensure the device met its design requirements and was comparable to predicate devices. For substantial equivalence, the "ground truth" was a comparison of technological characteristics to existing devices (Medtronic Model 6500 and Oscor Model TME 65 C).

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

Not applicable. "Training set" refers to data used to train machine learning models. This document describes a physical medical device undergoing engineering integrity tests, not an AI/ML product.

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

Not applicable, as there is no training set for a physical medical device.

Ask a specific question about this device