Search Results

Millipede70 Aspiration Catheter

The Millipede70 Aspiration Catheter, with the Perfuze Aspiration Tube Set and a compatible aspiration pump, is indicated for use in the revascularization of patients with acute ischemic stroke secondary to intracranial large vessel occlusive disease (within the internal carotid, middle cerebral - M1 and M2 segments, basilar, and vertebral arteries) within 8 hours of symptom onset. Patients who are ineligible for intravenous thrombolytic drug therapy or who have not responded to thrombolytic drug therapy are candidates for treatment.

Perfuze Aspiration Tube Set

The Perfuze Aspiration Tube Set is indicated to connect the Millipede70 Aspiration Catheter to a compatible aspiration pump.

The Millipede70 Aspiration Catheter is a sterile single-use device. It consists of the catheter and a rotating hemostasis valve (RHV).

The catheter is a single lumen, 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 RHV is assembled onto the hub of the catheter and is used to maintain hemostasis during infusion of saline and contrast agent and insertion of devices into the Millipede70 Aspiration Catheter.

The Perfuze Aspiration Tube Set is a sterile, single-use device consisting of a single flexible braided tube. The tube has a rotating male luer-lock connector on the distal end and a suction connector on the proximal end. The rotating male luer-lock connector connects to the hub of a Millipede70 Aspiration Catheter. The suction connector connects to the canister of an aspiration pump. A pinch clamp provides the user with the ability to apply vacuum to the catheter.

For the aspiration source, the Millipede70 Aspiration Catheter is used in conjunction with a compatible aspiration pump with prespecified performance parameters. The aspiration pump is connected using the Perfuze Aspiration Tube Set along with a legally marketed canister and accessories kit.

The provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter and summary for the Perfuze Ltd. Millipede70 Aspiration Catheter and Perfuze Aspiration Tube Set do not contain information about an AI/ML-based device or a comparative effectiveness study involving human readers with and without AI assistance.

This submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence of a physical medical device (catheter and aspiration tube set) to a previously cleared predicate device. The primary change is a minor modification to the outer diameter of the distal end of the catheter.

Therefore, many of the requested criteria regarding AI device performance, sample sizes for training/test sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, standalone AI performance, and ground truth establishment for AI models are not applicable to this specific 510(k) submission.

However, I can still extract information about the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the physical device meets these criteria based on the provided document.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for the Physical Device

The acceptance criteria for this physical device are primarily demonstrated through performance testing (bench testing), confirming its mechanical properties and functionality meet defined specifications and are comparable to the predicate device.

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

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

• Test Set Sample Size: The document does not specify exact sample sizes (N-values) for each bench test (e.g., how many catheters were subjected to kink resistance or torque strength testing). It broadly states "test specimen segments" or "test specimens."
• Data Provenance: The studies are bench (laboratory) tests conducted by the manufacturer, Perfuze Ltd., in Ireland. They are inherently prospective in the sense that they are designed and executed specifically for this regulatory submission. Country of origin of the data would be Ireland (where Perfuze Ltd. is based).

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

• Not Applicable. This is not an AI/ML device where expert consensus would establish ground truth for image interpretation or diagnosis. The "ground truth" for this physical device's performance is established by engineering specifications and physical measurements, and its functionality evaluated against predefined criteria in simulated environments.

4. Adjudication method for the test set:

• Not Applicable. As this is not a study involving human-in-the-loop assessment or expert review of clinical cases. Bench testing results are typically evaluated against pre-defined 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:

• No. An MRMC study was not conducted as this is a physical medical device (catheter) and not an AI/ML diagnostic or assistive software.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical device, not a standalone algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used:

• For the physical device, the "ground truth" is defined by engineering specifications, performance standards, and functional demonstration in controlled laboratory environments (e.g., neurovascular models). The goal is to demonstrate that the device performs according to its design, is safe, and is substantially equivalent to a previously cleared device.

8. The sample size for the training set:

• Not Applicable. This is a physical device; there is no "training set" in the context of machine learning.

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

• Not Applicable. There is no training set. The device's design and manufacturing are based on established engineering principles and material science, verified through the bench testing described.

Summary of the Device and Study:

The Millipede70 Aspiration Catheter and Perfuze Aspiration Tube Set are physical devices indicated for the revascularization of patients with acute ischemic stroke. The 510(k) submission seeks to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device (Millipede 070 Aspiration Catheter; K250012) due to a minor change in the distal outer diameter (from 0.0835" to 0.0837").

The study to prove the device meets acceptance criteria was non-clinical bench (laboratory) testing. This testing confirmed that the slightly modified device still met all relevant engineering specifications for dimensions, simulated use performance, coating integrity, kink resistance, tip stiffness, and torque strength. No new biocompatibility, sterilization, shelf-life, animal, or clinical studies were deemed necessary because the materials, fundamental design, indications for use, and operating principle remained the same as the predicate device. The change was determined not to raise different questions of safety or effectiveness.

Ask a specific question about this device

Product code NRY:
The CEREGLIDE 71 Catheter System, with the Cerenovus Aspiration Tubing Set and a compatible aspiration pump, is indicated for use in the revascularization of patients with acute ischemic stroke secondary to intracranial large vessel occlusive disease (within the internal carotid, middle cerebral – M1 and M2 segments, basilar, and vertebral arteries) within 8 hours of symptom onset. Patients who are ineligible for thrombolytic drug therapy or who failed thrombolytic drug therapy are candidates for treatment.

The Cerenovus Aspiration Tubing Set is intended to connect the Cerenovus Large Bore Catheter or the CEREGLIDE 71, 57, or 42 Intermediate Catheter to the canister of a compatible aspiration pump and to allow the user to control the fluid flow.

Product code QJP:
The CEREGLIDE 71 Catheter System is indicated for use in facilitating the insertion and guidance of appropriately sized interventional devices into a selected blood vessel in the neurovascular system. The CEREGLIDE 71 Catheter System is also indicated for use as a conduit for retrieval devices.

The CEREGLIDE™ 71 Catheter System consists of the CEREGLIDE™ 71 Intermediate Catheter and associated accessories including the INNERGLIDE™ 7 Delivery Aid, Rotating Hemostasis Valve, and Slit Introducers.

The CEREGLIDE™ 71 Intermediate Catheter is a single lumen, variable stiffness catheter designed to be introduced over a steerable guidewire along with a microcatheter and/or compatible support device into the neuro vasculature. The catheter consists of a lubricious PTFE inner lumen liner to facilitate movement of the guidewires and other devices, variable pitch stainless steel and tungsten braid, and various durometer polymer jackets.

These jackets provide distal flexibility and gradually transition to a stiffer proximal shaft to facilitate the advancement of the catheter in the anatomy. The outer surface of the catheter is hydrophilic coated in order to reduce friction during manipulation in the vessel. A radiopaque marker at the distal end of the catheter provides fluoroscopic visualization of the catheter tip. The proximal end of the catheter incorporates a standard Luer adapter to facilitate the attachment of accessories, a hub, and an ID band.

The CEREGLIDE™ 71 Catheter System is packaged with an INNERGLIDE™ 7 Delivery Aid, a Rotating Hemostasis Valve (RHV) with a side port and two Slit Introducer accessories. The INNERGLIDE™ 7 Delivery Aid is a compatible support device comprising of a single lumen catheter with a tapered tip, hydrophilic coating for increased lubricity, radiopaque tip for fluoroscopic visualization, and a proximal luer hub that is designed to be used as part of the CEREGLIDE™ 71 Catheter System to facilitate delivery of the CEREGLIDE™ 71 Intermediate Catheter to select blood vessels in the neurovasculature. The RHV with side port is used for flushing and insertion of catheters. The Slit Introducers are designed to introduce the CEREGLIDE™ 71 Intermediate Catheter into the base catheter and protect the distal tip of the CEREGLIDE™ 71 Intermediate Catheter during insertion into the hemostasis valve of the base catheter.

Product code NRY: The CEREGLIDE™ 71 Intermediate Catheter can be connected to a compatible aspiration pump using the Cerenovus Aspiration Tubing Set.

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device (CEREGLIDE 71 Catheter System), and does not contain the information requested about acceptance criteria and a study proving a device meets these criteria for an AI/software medical device.

The 510(k) summary explicitly states:

• "No animal studies were required as appropriate verification and validation of the subject device design were achieved based on the similarities of the proposed device and the predicate devices, and from results of bench testing."
• "Clinical studies were not required as appropriate verification and validation of the subject device design were achieved based on the similarities of the proposed device and the predicate devices, and from results of bench testing."

The document details the device's technical specifications, indications for use, and a comparison to predicate devices, along with non-clinical (bench) performance testing. These bench tests are primarily focused on the physical characteristics and performance of the catheter system, such as dimensions, material properties, durability, and a simple in vitro usability study.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, expert involvement, ground truth, or MRMC studies, as these aspects are not present in the provided document. The device in question is a physical medical catheter system, not an AI/software medical device that would typically involve such studies for regulatory submission.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Cora Microcatheters are intended to be used in conjunction with steerable guidewires to access discrete regions of the coronary and peripheral vasculature. They may be used to facilitate placement and exchange of guidewires and other interventional devices and provide a conduit for the delivery of saline solutions of diagnostic contrast.

The CoraFlex and CoraForce Microcatheters (Cora Microcatheters) are single lumen catheters designed to access the peripheral and coronary vasculature. Each configuration has a hydrophilic coated coiled catheter with a braided support matrix, radiopaque distal tip, proximal luer, and "spin-friendly" strain relief. The Cora Microcatheters will also allow for the exchange of guidewires and provide a conduit for delivery diagnostic or therapeutic agents.

This document is a 510(k) clearance letter for medical microcatheters, not an AI/ML device. Therefore, the requested information about acceptance criteria, study data, ground truth, and expert involvement for AI device performance is not applicable to this submission.

The FDA clearance is based on non-clinical (bench) testing demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, as indicated by the following sections:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:
This information is not provided in a table format. The document states:
"The Cora Microcatheters met all specified criteria and did not raise new questions regarding safety and effectiveness compared to the predicate."
And
"Based on the performance testing, the Cora Microcatheters were found to be substantially equivalent to the predicate."

The specific criteria and direct performance metrics are not detailed in this summary, but the types of tests performed indicate the areas of performance evaluated:

• Simulated Use
• Dimensional Verification
• Radiopacity
• Leak Testing
• Kink Resistance
• Corrosion Resistance
• Component Integrity
• Bond Integrity
• Particulate Testing
• Torque Testing
• Burst Testing
• Lubricity and Coating Integrity Testing
• Design Validation/Usability
• Sterility Testing
• Biocompatibility Assessment

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g., country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):
This information is not explicitly stated in the provided document. The study was non-clinical (bench testing).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
Not applicable, as this is a non-clinical device clearance.

4. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
Not applicable, as this is a non-clinical device clearance.

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, as this is a non-clinical device clearance and does not involve AI or human readers.

6. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:
Not applicable, as this is a non-clinical device clearance and does not involve an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):
Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device would be established by engineering specifications and industry standards for medical device performance, as evaluated through bench testing.

8. The sample size for the training set:
Not applicable, as this is a non-clinical device and does not involve a training set as in AI/ML.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
Not applicable, as this is a non-clinical device and does not involve a training set as in AI/ML.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Delivery Catheter is indicated for the introduction of pacing and defibrillation leads to the right heart, inclusive of the Left Bundle Branch Area.

The subject Delivery Catheter (CPS Locator 3D Delivery Catheter) is a single-use percutaneous catheter intended for venous introduction of pacing or defibrillation leads.

The subject Delivery Catheter is packaged with a dilator for introduction into the vasculature. Proximally, the subject Delivery Catheter is equipped with a hemostatic valve, and the distal soft, rounded, radiopaque tip facilitates imaging under fluoroscopy. The subject Delivery Catheter is designed to be slittable, thereby allowing its removal after device placement. A variety of curves and lengths are available to accommodate various anatomies and different locations.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to a medical device, not an AI/ML software. Therefore, the detailed acceptance criteria and study information requested, which are typical for AI/ML device evaluations, are not applicable in this context.

The document discusses the CPS Locator 3D Delivery Catheter, a physical medical device. The 510(k) process for such devices focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a legally marketed predicate device, primarily through performance testing (bench testing, biocompatibility, sterilization, etc.) and, in this case, some real-world usage data. It does not involve AI/ML performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or ground truth established by expert consensus for diagnostic accuracy.

Here's a breakdown of why many of your requested points are not applicable, followed by the information that can be extracted:

• Acceptance Criteria Table & Reported Performance: Not available in an AI/ML context. The document focuses on demonstrating the device's functional integrity and equivalence to a predicate.
• Sample Size (Test Set) & Data Provenance: Not applicable for an AI/ML test set. The clinical data mentioned is retrospective/real-world observational data on the previously cleared device.
• Number of Experts & Qualifications (Ground Truth): Not applicable as there's no diagnostic AI/ML algorithm requiring ground truth establishment by experts.
• Adjudication Method: Not applicable.
• MRMC Comparative Effectiveness Study: Not applicable.
• Standalone Performance: Not applicable as it's a physical catheter, not an AI/ML algorithm.
• Type of Ground Truth: Not applicable. The "ground truth" for a physical device is its functional performance and safety during use.
• Sample Size (Training Set): Not applicable as there's no AI/ML model to train.
• How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established: Not applicable.

Information that can be extracted from the provided document regarding the CPS Locator 3D Delivery Catheter:

The document describes the acceptance criteria and study to demonstrate substantial equivalence for a physical medical device, not an AI/ML system. Therefore, many of the requested fields related to AI/ML software evaluation are not directly applicable.

Here's a summary of the relevant information provided:

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

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

• Test Set (Bench/Performance Testing): Not explicitly stated as a separate "test set" for the new submission, but the document mentions "All testing was performed on test units representative of finished devices." The specific number of units for each bench test is not provided in this summary.
• Clinical Data (Real-World Evidence):
  • Post-market study: Data collected from 42 physicians at multiple US centers.
  • Retrospective Observational Study 1: Not explicitly stated sample size, but mentioned "patients."
  • Retrospective Observational Study 2: 66 patients.
  • HeartRhythm Publication: 8 patients.
• Data Provenance: Primarily United States (US) centers. The data is described as post-market, real-world observational, and retrospective from the previously cleared predicate device (K230363).

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device clearance, not an AI/ML diagnostic device requiring expert-established ground truth for performance metrics like sensitivity/specificity. The "ground truth" for the clinical data related to lead delivery success was based on actual surgical outcomes reported by physicians.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

• Not Applicable. No expert adjudication for an AI/ML algorithm's output was performed.

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 physical medical device, not an AI/ML system.

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

• Not Applicable. This is a physical medical device.

7. The type of ground truth used

• For the clinical data, the "ground truth" was based on observed clinical outcomes (e.g., successful lead delivery, achievement of LBBAP, reported complications/adverse events) as documented and reported by treating physicians and study investigators. This is akin to patient outcomes data in real-world settings.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not Applicable. There is no AI/ML algorithm with a training set.

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

• Not Applicable. There is no AI/ML algorithm with a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Micro Catheter is intended for the delivery of interventional devices or contrast media into the vasculature of the peripheral and neuro anatomy.

The Micro Catheter is a sterile, single-use, single lumen, variable stiffness, composite catheter. The Micro Catheter is available in three inner diameters (0.017″, 0.021″ and 0.027″), and two working lengths (150cm and 155cm). All models are designed with a straight tip, and are steam shapeable by the user. Single or dual radiopaque markers at the distal end facilitate fluoroscopic visualization. The outer surface of the catheter is coated with a hydrophilic coating to increase lubricity. The proximal end of Micro Catheter incorporates a standard luer adapter to facilitate the attachment of accessories. The catheter body has a semi-rigid proximal end which transitions into the flexible distal end to facilitate the advancement of the catheter in the tortuous vasculature. The Micro Catheter is compatible with ≤ 0.014″ guidewires and 5F or larger guide catheters.

The provided 510(k) clearance letter pertains to a Micro Catheter and describes its performance and testing to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device. This document does not discuss an AI/ML powered device, nor does it present data from a study involving human readers or the establishment of ground truth for AI model training or testing. Therefore, I cannot address most of your specific questions related to AI device evaluation.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and performance data for the Micro Catheter based on the provided text.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance for Micro Catheter

The document describes the testing performed on the Micro Catheter to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to a predicate device. The "acceptance criteria" are implied by the "Results" column in the tables, indicating whether the device met the required performance standards for each test.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Note: The FDA 510(k) summary for a medical device like a micro catheter focuses on engineering and biocompatibility performance rather than AI-specific metrics. The "acceptance criteria" are implicitly met if the "Results" indicate compliance, comparability to a predicate, or "met the acceptance criteria."

Ask a specific question about this device

The Guiding Catheter is designed to provide a pathway through which therapeutic and diagnostic devices are introduced. The Guiding Catheter is intended to be used in the coronary or peripheral vascular system.

The Hydrophilic Guiding Catheter consists of a reinforced body with a hub and strain relief at the proximal end and an intermediate and soft tip at the distal end. The distal part of the catheter features a specific tip shape. A part of the catheter body features a hydrophilic coating. The (distal part of the) catheter body is provided either with or without "in-line" side holes.

The guiding catheter is a flexible plastic tube featuring a luer hub, strain relief, a body, an intermediate tip, and a soft tip. The body and the intermediate tip consist of an inner liner (basecoat) and an outer jacket (topcoat) reinforced with a tightly wound stainless steel braid wire in between the layers. The central lumen of the catheter is used for the percutaneous, transluminal passage and placement of guidewires, diagnostic and therapeutic devices within the vascular system. After the catheter is inserted through the skin using a dilator, a sheath (introducer) and guide wire is brought into position. Subsequently, a guidewire is advanced through its lumen and tracked over by a diagnostic device and/or a therapeutic devices to the intended location. The distal section of the catheters has a variety of preformed shapes (e.g. Judkins Left (abbreviated as JL), Judkins Right (JR), Amplatz (AL), Multi-purpose (MP), hockey stick) to facilitate placement of the catheter tip in the desired target vessel. Some catheter models feature two (2) small "in-line" side holes in the intermediate tip section to maintain perfusion of the target vessel. This device is a single-use device (i.e., single patient, single procedure, single purpose use). After finalizing the procedure, the catheter is withdrawn, removed and discarded.

This document is an FDA 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device, specifically a "Primum Hydrophilic Guiding Catheter." It is NOT about a software-based AI/ML device, and therefore does not contain the information requested in your prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study details, human reader studies, or ground truth for AI models.

The device discussed is a physical catheter, and its acceptance criteria and proof of performance are based on bench testing (biocompatibility, physical properties tests) and comparison to a "predicate" device (another catheter already on the market) that is essentially the same product under a different trade name.

Therefore, I cannot provide the information requested in your prompt related to AI/ML device evaluation, as the provided text describes a traditional medical device clearance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Delivery Catheter is indicated for the introduction of various types of catheters and pacing or defibrillator leads.

The modified Delivery Catheter (CPS Locator 3D Delivery Catheter) is a single-use percutaneous catheter indicated for the introduction of various types of catheters and pacing or defibrillation leads.

The modified Delivery Catheter is packaged with a dilator for introduction into the vasculature. Proximally, the modified Delivery Catheter is equipped with a hemostatic valve, and the distal soft, rounded, radiopaque tip facilitates imaging under fluoroscopy. The modified Delivery Catheter is designed to be slittable, thereby allowing its removal after device placement. A variety of curves and lengths are available to accommodate various anatomies and different locations.

This document describes the FDA 510(k) clearance for the CPS Locator 3D Plus Delivery Catheter, a medical device. Based on the provided text, the device is a percutaneous catheter used for introducing various types of catheters and pacing or defibrillator leads. The clearance is based on its substantial equivalence to a predicate device (CPS Locator 3D Delivery Catheter, K230363).

However, the provided text does not contain any information about an AI/ML-based device or any study that would typically be described with the requested criteria (e.g., sample sizes, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, ground truth establishment, training sets). The acceptance criteria mentioned are related to engineering and biological performance of a physical medical device (catheter) rather than the performance of an AI/ML algorithm.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for information related to an AI/ML device's acceptance criteria and study data based on this document. The document describes a traditional medical device clearance, not an AI/ML software clearance.

**If your intention was to ask about the acceptance criteria and supporting studies for a physical medical device as described in the document, here is the information: **

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document outlines performance tests conducted, implying these tests have acceptance criteria which the device met ("passed the following tests"). Specific quantitative acceptance criteria (e.g., "leak rate must be

Ask a specific question about this device

The CenterFlow Molding Balloon Catheter is intended to assist in the dilatation of self-expanding endoprostheses in large diameter vessels.

The CenterFlow Molding Balloon Catheter is intended to assist in the dilatation of self-expanding endoprostheses in large diameter vessels. When used in its indications for use, it is a low-permissive, over-the-wire, single-use device comprised of two elongated non-compliant nylon balloons that are attached to and within a nitinol support frame. The two elongated balloons are constrained in a zigzag arrangement by the nitinol support frame. Upon inflation, this configuration enables expansion of the device head through balloon straightening, to assist the dilatation of self-expanding endoprostheses in large diameter vessels. Expansion of the zig-zag balloon configuration creates a central orifice permitting maintained hemodynamic flow during the molding procedure. The inflation lumen is 9 Fr and is made of PEBAX 72D. A co-axial PEBAX 72D guidewire lumen runs through the inflation lumen and device head and terminates into a distal polycarbonate tip. Two platinum-iridium markers provide angiographic visualization of the distal and proximal balloon edges to facilitate intravascular balloon placement prior to inflation. The catheter has a working length of 110 cm and it connects proximally to a standard Y-connector at the proximal end. The Y-connector allows for separation of two lumens - an angled luer-lock hub to inflate and deflate the balloon and a straight luer-lock hub which accepts a 0.035" guidewire. The device is deflated and inserted over the guidewire through the hemostasis valve of a transfemoral introducer sheath.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification letter and summary for the CenterFlow Molding Balloon Catheter. This document details the device's intended use, design, and comparison to a predicate device. However, it does not contain any information regarding specific acceptance criteria or a study that proves the device meets those criteria in terms of performance metrics like accuracy, sensitivity, or specificity.

The "Non-Clinical Tests Summary & Conclusions" section lists the types of tests performed (Benchtop performance testing, Biological Safety Evaluation, In vivo safety evaluation, Packaging validation, Shelf-life validation, Usability Engineering evaluation), but it does not provide any quantitative results, acceptance criteria, or details of a study with a test set, ground truth, or expert involvement.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them because the provided text does not contain any of that specific data.

Here’s what I can extract based on the information not present in the document:

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

   • Acceptance Criteria: Not available in the provided text.
   • Reported Device Performance: Not available in the provided text (beyond a general statement that "the subject device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device" based on non-clinical testing).

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective): Not available for performance testing. (Note: "In vivo safety evaluation" is mentioned, which implies animal or human subjects, but no details on size or provenance are given for performance evaluation.)

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): Not available.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not available.

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 a physical catheter, not an AI or imaging diagnostic tool that would involve "human readers" or "AI assistance."

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable for this type of medical device.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not available.

8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable (not an AI/ML device with a training set).

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, the provided FDA 510(k) notification focuses on establishing substantial equivalence based on design features and general non-clinical testing (benchtop, biocompatibility, in vivo safety, etc.) for a physical medical device (balloon catheter), rather than providing detailed performance metrics typically associated with diagnostic or AI-powered devices. The document explicitly states the "Non-Clinical Tests Summary & Conclusions" showed substantial equivalence but does not elaborate on the specific quantifiable results or the methodology behind them.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Branchor X Balloon Guide Catheter is indicated for use to facilitate the insertion and guidance of an intravascular catheter into a selected blood vessel in the neuro vasculature, and injection of contrast media.

The balloon provides temporary vascular occlusion during these procedures.

The Branchor X Balloon Guide Catheter can also be used as a conduit for retrieval devices.

The Branchor X Balloon Guide Catheter is a variable stiffness catheter that has a radiopaque marker at the distal end of the balloon to facilitate fluoroscopic visualization and indicate the balloon position, a branched connector at the proximal end, and is equipped with a braid reinforced lumen. A balloon is attached to the distal end, and the dimensions of the balloon guide catheter and recommended balloon injection volume are provided on the product label.

The outer surface of this balloon guide catheter is coated with a hydrophilic coating for enhanced lubricity when the surface is wet. The shaft lumen is provided with PTFE coating, with the exception of the connector section. This allows the guidewire and other devices to easily move through the section.

The Branchor X Balloon Guide Catheter is packaged with a luer-activated valve, a syringe, a three-way stopcock, a rotating hemostasis valve (RHV), and a peel-away accessories.

The provided text is a 510(k) clearance letter for a medical device, the Branchor X Balloon Guide Catheter. This type of regulatory submission primarily focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device, rather than proving novel efficacy or safety through large-scale clinical trials.

As such, the document details non-clinical bench testing and biocompatibility testing to show that the new device performs comparably to the predicate and meets established safety standards. It explicitly states that "Animal study was not deemed necessary to demonstrate substantial equivalence" and "Clinical study was not deemed necessary to demonstrate substantial equivalence."

Therefore, the information regarding acceptance criteria and the "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" will be focused on these non-clinical tests. There is no information about human-in-the-loop studies (MRMC), standalone AI performance, ground truth establishment for a training set (as there's no AI component mentioned), or expert adjudication, simply because these types of studies were not required for this particular 510(k) submission.

Here's the breakdown of the available information:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance Study for Branchor X Balloon Guide Catheter

The device, Branchor X Balloon Guide Catheter, demonstrates substantial equivalence to its predicate device, the Branchor Balloon Guide Catheter (K221951), through extensive non-clinical bench testing and biocompatibility assessment. The aim of these studies was to confirm that the new device met pre-established acceptance criteria, functioned as intended, and had a safety and effectiveness profile similar to the predicate.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria for each test were "All samples met the acceptance criteria," indicating a 100% success rate for the tested samples against predefined engineering and safety specifications.

Biocompatibility Testing:

2. Sample Size and Data Provenance

• Sample Size: The document repeatedly states "All samples met the acceptance criteria" for non-clinical tests. However, the exact numerical sample size for each specific test (e.g., how many catheters were tested for burst pressure) is not specified in this 510(k) summary.
• Data Provenance: The device manufacturer is ASAHI INTECC CO., LTD., located in Japan, with a US presence. The testing is non-clinical bench testing and refers to ISO standards. The data is not from human patients and therefore does not have a country of origin in the typical sense (e.g., patient demographics). All testing appears to be prospective as it was conducted specifically to support this 510(k) submission.

3. Number of Experts and Qualifications for Ground Truth

• Not Applicable. This device is a physical medical instrument, not a diagnostic or AI-driven software. The "ground truth" for its performance is established through engineering and material science standards and physical measurements, not interpretation by human experts (e.g., radiologists interpreting images).

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not Applicable. As the tests are non-clinical, objective measurements against engineering specifications, there is no need for expert adjudication.

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

• Not Applicable. No MRMC study was conducted. This type of study involves human readers (e.g., radiologists) evaluating cases, often with and without AI assistance, to assess diagnostic performance. This device is a catheter and does not involve image interpretation or AI assistance for human readers.

6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance Study

• Not Applicable. This device is a physical catheter, not an algorithm or AI software. Therefore, no standalone algorithm performance study was performed or is relevant.

7. Type of Ground Truth Used

• The "ground truth" refers to engineering design specifications, material science standards (e.g., tensile strength, burst pressure limits), and relevant international standards (ISO standards) for medical device performance and biocompatibility. For instance, for dimensional verification, the ground truth is the specified engineering drawing dimensions. For biocompatibility, the ground truth is the absence of toxic, sensitizing, irritant, or pyrogenic effects as defined by ISO 10993 series.

8. Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not Applicable. There is no AI component or machine learning model that requires a training set for this device.

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

• Not Applicable. As there is no training set, this question is not relevant.

Ask a specific question about this device

The FUBUKI XF-R Neurovascular Long Sheath is intended to be used to guide interventional devices for neurovascular therapy to a lesion or a procedural site for a percutaneous intravascular procedure in the neurovasculature. The FUBUKI XF-R Neurovascular Long Sheath is also intended to be used for injection of contrast media.

The FUBUKI XF-R Neurovascular Long Sheath is intended for use only in the neurovasculature.

The FUBUKI XF-R Neurovascular Long Sheath (FUBUKI XF-R) consists of a long sheath and a dilator. The long sheath is a single lumen neurovascular catheter designed for introduction of interventional devices, such as guidewires and other therapeutic devices. The long sheath consists of three sections: (1) a shaft, (2) a protector and (3) a connector. The distal portion of the shaft consists of a soft tip and a soft tube. The proximal part of the shaft is covered by the protector (strain relief) and the connector is bonded to the proximal end of the shaft.

The subject device is provided sterile, by ethylene oxide, and is intended for single use only by physicians who have been adequately trained in neurointerventional procedures.

The outer surface of the long sheath is coated with a hydrophilic polymer and the inner lumen of the shaft (excluding the connector portion) is lined with a fluoropolymer layer to facilitate movement of the guidewire and other devices.

The dilator consists of two parts: (1) a shaft and (2) a connector.

The FUBUKI XF-R is supplied with a dilator and rotating hemostasis valve (RHV) packed in a sterile package.

The provided FDA 510(k) Clearance Letter for the FUBUKI XF-R Neurovascular Long Sheath describes the device and its demonstrated substantial equivalence to a predicate device. However, it does not contain information about a study involving an AI/algorithm or a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study.

Therefore, many of the requested details regarding acceptance criteria, ground truth, expert opinions, and sample sizes for AI/algorithm performance studies cannot be extracted from this document because such a study was not conducted or reported for this submission. This is a medical device, specifically a catheter, not an AI/software device.

I will provide the information that is available in the document, framed as if it were a typical medical device clearance, rather than an AI/ML clearance.

Here's the breakdown based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Study for FUBUKI XF-R Neurovascular Long Sheath

This clearance pertains to a physical medical device (a neurovascular long sheath), not an AI/software device. Therefore, the "acceptance criteria" and "study" refer to non-clinical bench testing and biocompatibility testing to demonstrate the device's physical performance, safety, and substantial equivalence to a predicate device. There is no AI component involved in this device or its clearance documentation.

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

The document states that the device met all acceptance criteria, but it does not specify the numerical acceptance criteria for each test. Instead, it lists the types of tests performed and the conclusions.

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

• Sample Size: The document does not specify the exact number of devices tested for each non-clinical bench or biocompatibility test. It only states that testing was "performed." For biocompatibility, it refers to standard ISO test methods (e.g., "Rabbit Pyrogen Test" implies a certain number of rabbits, but the exact count isn't given).
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, but typically, non-clinical lab testing data would originate from the manufacturer's own testing facilities or contract research organizations. No geographic origin is mentioned for the data, nor is it specified if the tests were retrospective or prospective; however, given that these are physical device tests for a 510(k) submission, they would inherently be prospective (i.e., new tests conducted specifically for this submission).

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

This information is not applicable to this type of device clearance. "Ground truth" in the context of expert consensus, pathology, or outcomes data is typically reserved for diagnostic devices, particularly those involving image interpretation or clinical decision support, or AI/ML-driven devices. For a physical medical device like a catheter, "ground truth" is established through standardized engineering and biological tests (e.g., tensile strength, fluid flow, material composition, biological response), rather than expert clinical interpretation of data.

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

This is not applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for clinical trials or multi-reader studies where there might be disagreement in expert assessment (e.g., image interpretation). For bench and biocompatibility testing, results are quantitative or qualitative based on predefined scientific standards and validated test methods.

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:

No, a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is specific to diagnostic devices, especially those that involve human interpretation assisted by algorithms (AI). This submission is for a physical percutaneous catheter, not a diagnostic or AI-assisted device. Therefore, a discussion of human reader improvement with AI assistance is not relevant to this device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) 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 (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

The "ground truth" for this medical device is based on:

• Predefined engineering specifications and performance standards (e.g., dimensions, strength, lubricity).
• Validated test methods outlined in ISO standards (e.g., ISO 10555-1 for catheters, ISO 10993 series for biocompatibility).
• Chemical and material analysis.
• Biological responses observed in animal models (for biocompatibility).

This is fundamentally different from a ground truth established by expert clinical consensus, pathology, or outcomes data for diagnostic devices.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This is not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML device.

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

This is not applicable. There is no "training set" or "ground truth for a training set" as this is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device