The APRO 70 Swift Catheter is indicated for use in facilitating the insertion and guidance of appropriately sized interventional devices into a selected blood vessel in the peripheral and neurovascular systems. The APRO 70 Swift Catheter is also indicated for use as a conduit for retrieval devices.
Device Story
APRO 70 Swift Catheter is a single-lumen, braid and coil reinforced percutaneous catheter; used to facilitate insertion/guidance of interventional devices into peripheral and neurovasculature; serves as conduit for retrieval devices. Operated by physicians under fluoroscopic guidance; introduced via guide catheter/sheath over guidewire. Features hydrophilic coating on distal shaft for navigation; radiopaque marker at distal tip for visualization. Output is physical access to target vasculature; enables delivery of interventional tools or retrieval of clots. Benefits patient by providing minimally invasive access to neurovascular/peripheral sites for therapeutic procedures.
Clinical Evidence
No clinical data. Substantial equivalence established via non-clinical bench testing, including visual/dimensional analysis, kink resistance, hub air leakage/compatibility, torque strength, burst pressure, liquid leakage, tensile strength, tip buckling force, delivery/retrieval force, and simulated use in anatomical models. Biocompatibility testing (ISO 10993-1) confirmed non-sensitizing, non-irritant, non-cytotoxic, non-hemolytic, non-thrombogenic, non-toxic, and non-pyrogenic properties.
Indicated for patients requiring interventional device insertion and guidance into peripheral and neurovascular blood vessels, or as a conduit for retrieval devices.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A percutaneous catheter is a device that is introduced into a vein or artery through the skin using a dilator and a sheath (introducer) or guide wire.
APRO 70 Catheter and Alembic Aspiration Tubing (K223545)
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/0/Picture/0 description: The image shows the logo of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The logo consists of two parts: the Department of Health & Human Services logo on the left and the FDA logo on the right. The FDA logo is in blue and includes the letters "FDA" in a square, followed by the words "U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION".
January 14, 2025
Alembic, LLC Lisa Yen Vice President of Regulatory and Quality 627 National Avenue Mountain View. California 94043
Re: K243297
Trade/Device Name: APRO 70 Swift Catheter Regulation Number: 21 CFR 870.1250 Regulation Name: Percutaneous Catheter Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: QJP, DQY Dated: December 17, 2024 Received: December 18, 2024
Dear Lisa Yen:
We have reviewed your section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments, or to devices that have been reclassified in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) that do not require approval of a premarket approval application (PMA). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general controls provisions of the Act. Although this letter refers to your product as a device, please be aware that some cleared products may instead be combination products. The 510(k) Premarket Notification Database available at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm identifies combination product submissions. The general controls provisions of the Act include requirements for annual registration, listing of devices, good manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions against misbranding and adulteration. Please note: CDRH does not evaluate information related to contract liability warranties. We remind you, however, that device labeling must be truthful and not misleading.
If your device is classified (see above) into either class II (Special Controls) or class III (PMA), it may be subject to additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 898. In addition, FDA may publish further announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register.
{1}------------------------------------------------
Additional information about changes that may require a new premarket notification are provided in the FDA guidance documents entitled "Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device" (https://www.fda.gov/media/99812/download) and "Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Software Change to an Existing Device" (https://www.fda.gov/media/99785/download).
Your device is also subject to, among other requirements, the Quality System (QS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820), which includes, but is not limited to, 21 CFR 820.30. Design controls; 21 CFR 820.90. Nonconforming product; and 21 CFR 820.100, Corrective and preventive action. Please note that regardless of whether a change requires premarket review, the QS regulation requires device manufacturers to review and approve changes to device design and production (21 CFR 820.30 and 21 CFR 820.70) and document changes and approvals in the device master record (21 CFR 820.181).
Please be advised that FDA's issuance of a substantial equivalence determination does not mean that FDA has made a determination that your device complies with other requirements of the Act or any Federal statutes and regulations administered by other Federal agencies. You must comply with all the Act's requirements, including, but not limited to: registration and listing (21 CFR Part 807); labeling (21 CFR Part 801); medical device reporting of medical device-related adverse events) (21 CFR Part 803) for devices or postmarketing safety reporting (21 CFR Part 4, Subpart B) for combination products (see https://www.fda.gov/combination-products/guidance-regulatory-information/postmarketing-safety-reportingcombination-products); good manufacturing practice requirements as set forth in the quality systems (QS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820) for devices or current good manufacturing practices (21 CFR Part 4, Subpart A) for combination products; and, if applicable, the electronic product radiation control provisions (Sections 531-542 of the Act); 21 CFR Parts 1000-1050.
All medical devices, including Class I and unclassified devices and combination product device constituent parts are required to be in compliance with the final Unique Device Identification System rule ("UDI Rule"). The UDI Rule requires, among other things, that a device bear a unique device identifier (UDI) on its label and package (21 CFR 801.20(a)) unless an exception or alternative applies (21 CFR 801.20(b)) and that the dates on the device label be formatted in accordance with 21 CFR 801.18. The UDI Rule (21 CFR 830.300(a) and 830.320(b)) also requires that certain information be submitted to the Global Unique Device Identification Database (GUDID) (21 CFR Part 830 Subpart E). For additional information on these requirements, please see the UDI System webpage at https://www.fda.gov/medical-device-advicecomprehensive-regulatory-assistance/unique-device-identification-system-udi-system.
Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21 CFR 807.97). For questions regarding the reporting of adverse events under the MDR regulation (21 CFR Part 803), please go to https://www.fda.gov/medical-device-safety/medical-device-reportingmdr-how-report-medical-device-problems.
For comprehensive regulatory information about mediation-emitting products, including information about labeling regulations, please see Device Advice (https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance) and CDRH Learn (https://www.fda.gov/training-and-continuing-education/cdrh-learn). Additionally, you may contact the Division of Industry and Consumer Education (DICE) to ask a question about a specific regulatory topic. See the DICE website (https://www.fda.gov/medical-device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory
{2}------------------------------------------------
assistance/contact-us-division-industry-and-consumer-education-dice) for more information or contact DICE by email (DICE@fda.hhs.gov) or phone (1-800-638-2041 or 301-796-7100).
Sincerely,
# Naira Muradyan -S
Naira Muradyan, Ph.D. Assistant Director DHT5A: Division of Neurosurgical, Neurointerventional, and Neurodiagnostic Devices OHT5: Office of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices Office of Product Evaluation and Quality Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{3}------------------------------------------------
# Indications for Use
510(k) Number (if known) K243297
Device Name APRO 70 Swift Catheter
### Indications for Use (Describe)
The APRO 70 Swift Catheter is indicated for use in facilitating the insertion and guidance of appropriately sized interventional devices into a selected blood vessel in the peripheral and neurovascular systems. The APRO 70 Swift Catheter is also indicated for use as a conduit for retrieval devices.
| Type of Use (Select one or both, as applicable) |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| <input checked="" type="checkbox"/> Prescription Use (Part 21 CFR 801 Subpart D) |
| <input type="checkbox"/> Over-The-Counter Use (21 CFR 801 Subpart C) |
### CONTINUE ON A SEPARATE PAGE IF NEEDED.
This section applies only to requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
### *DO NOT SEND YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE PRA STAFF EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW.*
The burden time for this collection of information is estimated to average 79 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed and complete and review the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
> Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Office of Chief Information Officer Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Staff PRAStaff(@fda.hhs.gov
"An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB number."
{4}------------------------------------------------
# 510(k) Summary
#### K243297 510(k) Number:
This 510(k) Summary is provided in accordance with the requirements of 21 CFR §807.92.
#### Submitter information 1)
| Submitter: | Alembic, LLC<br>627 National Ave.<br>Mountain View, CA 94043 |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Contact: | Lisa Yen<br>VP of Regulatory and Quality<br>Telephone Number: (650) 388-5087<br>Email: lyen@alembicllc.com |
| Date Prepared: | January 14, 2025 |
#### 2) Device Name and Classification
| Trade/Proprietary Name: | APRO® 70 Swift Catheter |
|--------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Common Name: | Percutaneous Catheter |
| Classification Name: | Percutaneous Catheter, 21 CFR 870.1250<br>Catheter, Percutaneous, Neurovasculature, 21 CFR 870.1250 |
| Regulatory Class: | Class II |
| Product Codes: | DQY, QJP |
| Review Panel: | Cardiovascular, Neurology |
| Legally Marketed Predicate Device and Reference Device | |
| Predicate Device: | K234115 APRO 55 Catheter |
| Reference Device: | K223545 APRO 70 Catheter and Alembic Aspiration Tubing |
#### 4) Device Description
3)
The APRO 70 Swift Catheter is a single-lumen, braid and coil reinforced catheter. The APRO 70 Swift Catheter is designed to facilitate the insertion and guidance of interventional devices into peripheral and neuro vasculature. Using standard catheterization techniques under fluoroscopic guidance, the APRO 70 Swift Catheter is introduced through a guide catheter or guide sheath and over a guidewire into the target vasculature. The distal segment of the catheter shaft has a hydrophilic coating to aid navigation through the vasculature. A radiopaque marker is located at the distal tip of the catheter for visualization under fluoroscopy. The APRO 70 Swift Catheter is provided with an Introducer Sheath.
{5}------------------------------------------------
#### 5) Indications for Use
The APRO 70 Swift Catheter is indicated for use in facilitating the insertion and guidance of appropriately sized interventional devices into a selected blood vessel in the peripheral and neurovascular systems. The APRO 70 Swift Catheter is also indicated for use as a conduit for retrieval devices.
#### Technological Characteristics Comparison 6)
Alembic has demonstrated that the APRO 70 Swift Catheter is substantially equivalent to the predicate device based on the similarity in materials, similarity in design concept, and the same fundamental operating principles. A comparison of the APRO 70 Swift Catheter with the predicate device is summarized in Table 1 below.
| Category | Subject Device<br>APRO 70 Swift Catheter | Predicate Device<br>APRO 55 Catheter |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 510(k) Number | K243297 | K234115 |
| Regulatory Class | Class II, 21 CFR 870.1250, DQY,<br>QJP | Class II, 21 CFR 870.1250, DQY,<br>QJP |
| Indications for Use | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter is<br>indicated for use in facilitating the<br>insertion and guidance of<br>appropriately sized interventional<br>devices into a selected blood vessel in<br>the peripheral and neurovascular<br>systems. The APRO 70 Swift<br>Catheter is also indicated for use<br>as a conduit for retrieval devices. | The APRO 55 Catheter is indicated<br>for use in facilitating the insertion<br>and guidance of appropriately sized<br>interventional devices into a selected<br>blood vessel in the peripheral and<br>neurovascular systems. The APRO<br>55 Catheter is also indicated for use<br>as a conduit for retrieval devices. |
| Materials | | |
| Hub | Nylon | Nylon |
| Adhesive | Cyanoacrylate | Cyanoacrylate |
| Strain Relief | Thermoplastic elastomer | Thermoplastic elastomer |
| Liner | Polytetrafluoroethylene<br>(PTFE)/Tecoflex composite | PTFE/Tecoflex composite |
| Shaft Coil and Braid | 304V stainless steel braid<br>304V stainless steel coil | 304V stainless steel braid<br>304V stainless steel coil |
| Extrusions | Thermoplastic polyurethanes,<br>thermoplastic elastomer | Thermoplastic polyurethanes,<br>thermoplastic elastomer |
| Marker Band | Platinum/ iridium | Platinum/ iridium |
| Adhesive | None | None |
| Coating | Hydrophilic coating | Hydrophilic coating |
| Dimensions | | |
| Proximal Outer<br>Diameter | 0.083 inch | 0.066 inch |
| Distal Outer Diameter | 0.083 inch | 0.066 inch |
| Inner Diameter | 0.070 inch | 0.055 inch |
| Effective Lengths | 125, 132, 135 cm | 125, 137 cm |
| Coated Length | 90, 97, 100 cm | 90, 102 cm |
| Tip Shape | Straight | Straight |
| Accessories | | |
| Category | Subject Device<br>APRO 70 Swift Catheter | Predicate Device<br>APRO 55 Catheter |
| Introducer Sheath | Yes | Yes |
| Packaging Materials | | |
| Pouch | Nylon/polyethylene/ Tyvek | Nylon/polyethylene/ Tyvek |
| Packaging Tube | N/A | Polyethylene |
| Packaging Hoop Coil | Polyethylene | N/A |
| Packaging Card | Yes | Yes |
| Shelf Carton | Solid bleached sulfate paperboard | Solid bleached sulfate paperboard |
| Other | | |
| Sterilization | Ethylene oxide | Ethylene oxide |
| Shelf Life | 1 year | 6 months |
| Use Conditions | Sterile, single use, disposable | Sterile, single use, disposable |
### Table 1 - APRO 70 Swift Catheter Comparison with the Predicate Device
{6}------------------------------------------------
#### 7) Performance Data
Alembic performed non-clinical bench, sterility, shelf-life, and biocompatibility testing. The results demonstrate substantial equivalence of the APRO 70 Swift Catheter to the legally marketed predicate device.
## A. Design Verification Testing – Non-Clinical Bench
Performance testing was conducted to support the APRO 70 Swift Catheter submission. The results of the design verification and validation testing confirm that the APRO 70 Swift Catheter conforms to the predefined specifications and meets test acceptance criteria. A summary of the testing is shown in Table 2.
| Test | Acceptance Criteria | Conclusion |
|-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Visual and Dimensional<br>Characteristics | Catheter meets the visual and dimensional<br>specifications. | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter<br>met the acceptance criteria. |
| Particulate | Catheter meets the acceptance criteria.<br>Subject device was evaluated with a<br>predicate device under the same test<br>conditions. | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter<br>particulates were comparable to<br>the predicate device. |
| Kink Resistance | Catheter shaft shall not kink at clinically<br>relevant radii. | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter met<br>the acceptance criteria. |
| Hub Air Leakage | Catheter does not leak air into hub<br>assembly with methods specified in ISO<br>10555-1, Annex D. | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter met<br>the acceptance criteria. |
| Hub Compatibility | Catheter meets the requirements specified<br>in ISO 80369-7. | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter met<br>the acceptance criteria. |
| Torque Strength | Catheter must withstand the minimum<br>required number of rotations without<br>breakage and without kinking compared to<br>legally marketed devices. | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter met<br>the acceptance criteria. |
| Dynamic Burst Pressure | No damage to catheter with dynamic<br>pressure. | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter met<br>the acceptance criteria. |
| Liquid Leakage | Catheter must withstand pressure<br>with methods specified in ISO 10555-<br>1, Annex C. | The APRO70 Swift Catheter met<br>the acceptance criteria. |
| Static Burst | Catheter must withstand pressures<br>anticipated for clinical use. | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter met<br>the acceptance criteria |
### Table 2 - Summary of Non-Clinical Bench Test Results
{7}------------------------------------------------
| Test | Acceptance Criteria | Conclusion |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Hub and Shaft Tensile Strength | Catheter hub and shaft must meet tensile strength specification. | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter met the acceptance criteria. |
| Tip Tensile Strength | Catheter tip must meet tip tensile strength specification. | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter met the acceptance criteria. |
| Tip Buckling Force | Catheter tip buckling force must be acceptable. Forces were compared to a predicate. | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter was comparable to the predicate device. |
| Delivery and Retrieval Force | Catheter delivery and retrieval force must be acceptable. Forces were compared to a predicate. | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter met the acceptance criteria. |
| Simulated Use | When used per the Instructions for Use with accessory devices in an anatomical neurovascular model and during simulated clot retrieval, the Catheter must meet functionality specifications including compatibility with a stent retriever. | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter met the acceptance criteria. |
## B. Design Verification Testing - Animal
Substantial equivalence was established based on non-clinical bench performance data. Animal testing data were not deemed necessary.
### C. Sterilization and Shelf-Life
The APRO 70 Swift Catheter is sterilized using an ethylene oxide sterilization cycle that was verified to a sterility assurance level of 1 x 10 6 in accordance with ISO 11135.
Aging studies for the APRO 70 Swift Catheter have established that the subject device and packaging remain functional for the labeled expiration date. Aging studies for packaging integrity, seal strength, and the device functionality were performed and met the acceptance criteria.
### D. Biocompatibility
Biocompatibility testing has been completed for the APRO 70 Swift Catheter as an externally communicating device with circulating blood contact for a limited (≤24 hours) duration in accordance with ISO 10993-1 and the FDA guidance, "Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, "Biological evaluation of medical devices – Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process ". "
| Test | Results | Conclusions |
|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
| Sensitization<br>(Guinea Pig Maximization) | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter did not elicit a sensitization response. | Non-sensitizing |
| Irritation/Intracutaneous<br>Reactivity | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter demonstrated no evidence of irritation. | Non-irritant |
| Cytotoxicity<br>(MEM Elution, L929 cells) | The APRO 70 Swift Catheter did not elicit a cytotoxic response at 24 hours and 48 hours. | Non-cytotoxic |
| Table 3 - Biocompatibility Test Results | | |
|-----------------------------------------|--|--|
| | | |
{8}------------------------------------------------
| Test | Results | Conclusions |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|
| Hemolysis - Indirect | There were no significant differences between<br>the test article extract and negative control<br>article results. | Non-hemolytic |
| Hemolysis - Direct | There were no differences between the<br>hemolytic index of the test article and the<br>negative control. | Non-hemolytic |
| Thrombogenicity -<br>Partial Thromboplastin<br>Time (PTT) | The average clotting time of the test article was<br>greater than vehicle control and negative<br>control. | Acceptable clotting<br>times |
| Thrombogenicity - Platelet<br>Leukocyte Count | Performed similar to comparator and negative<br>controls. | Non-thrombogenic |
| Thrombogenicity -<br>Comparative Surface and<br>Geometry Assessment | Comparative surface assessment using 40X<br>optical microscopy at representative locations<br>of the subject and the reference device APRO<br>70 Catheter did not find any differences in<br>roughness or presence of any defects. The<br>subject device has the same geometry as the<br>reference device APRO 70 Catheter. | Acceptable results |
| SC5b9 Complement<br>Activation | The Sc5b9 concentration of the test article was<br>statistically less than the positive control and<br>was not statistically higher than the negative<br>control. | Acceptable |
| Acute Systemic Toxicity | No weight loss, mortality, or evidence of<br>systemic toxicity from the extract exposure to<br>the mice. | Non-toxic |
| Material-Mediated<br>Pyrogenicity | All individual rabbits for both the test article<br>and negative control showed a total rise in<br>temperature of < 0.5 °C and were determined to<br>be nonpyrogenic. | Non-pyrogenic |
### E. Clinical Testing
Substantial equivalence was established based on non-clinical performance data. Human clinical data were not deemed necessary.
#### 8) Conclusion
Based on the comparison of the technological characteristics and the non-clinical testing, the subject device is found to be substantially equivalent to the predicate device. The differences in technological characteristics do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness. Testing was conducted to demonstrate that the subject device meets the specifications and performs as intended.
Predicate graph will load when search results are available.
Embedding visualization will load when search results are available.
PDF viewer will load when search results are available.
Loading panels...
Select an item from Submissions
Click any panel, subpart, regulation, product code, or device to see details here.
Section Matches
Results will appear here.
Product Code Matches
Results will appear here.
Special Control Matches
Results will appear here.
Loading collections...
Loading
My Alerts
You will receive email notifications based on the filters and frequency you set for each alert.
Sort by:
Create Alert
Search Filters
Agent Token
Create a read-only bearer token for Claude, ChatGPT, or other agents that can call HTTP APIs.
Copy this now. It will not be shown again.
Connected apps
Apps you authorized through browser sign-in. Disconnecting revokes their access immediately.
Learn the FDA Browser
Two short videos show you everything — or skip straight to the written tutorial if you'd rather read. You can reopen this any time from the Tutorial button in the top bar.
Part 1 — Search, results, and everyday workflows 16 min
Part 2 — Embeddings: the galaxy map 3 min
1. Search: exact and fuzzy
Type a phrase like "coronary artery calcification" into the search box. You get two kinds of results. Exact results match the literal phrase — prefix searches work ("coronary artery calcificati") but suffix searches do not. Fuzzy results match on the meaning and intent of your phrase rather than the exact words, and are sorted by relevance score. Hover over the Exact or Fuzzy badge on any row to see exactly why it matched.
Use the checkboxes above the results to narrow: SaMD keeps only software-only devices, AI / ML keeps only devices with AI.
Exact vs. fuzzy search: what's the difference?
Exact matches on the literal phrase (prefix search works, suffix does not). Fuzzy matches on the meaning and intent of the phrase rather than the exact words. Hover over the badge on any row to see why it matched.
You search "coronary artery calcification" and want only software devices with AI. What two filters do you apply?
Narrow by SaMD (software-only devices), then narrow by AI/ML (devices with AI).
2. The results table
Scroll right in the results table. The intended use is extracted for you — no need to open the PDF. The device story gives a high-level snapshot of what the device does and how it's used. The AI Performance sub-table shows each output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, and development/test dataset descriptions — the same format Innolitics uses for regulatory strategy outputs, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. It is AI-generated but has been very reliable in practice.
Where do you find a device's intended use without opening the PDF?
Scroll right in the search results table. The intended use column is extracted for you; no need to dig into the 510(k) summary PDF.
What does the AI Performance sub-table show, and why is it useful?
Output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, development dataset description, and test dataset description. It's the same format we use for regulatory strategy output and Fast 510(k) input, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. AI-generated but reliable in practice.
3. Judging fuzzy relevance
Fuzzy results trail off in relevance as you scroll. Use three signals to decide how far down to go: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether your target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, you're past the relevant zone. A top hit with a low score (~0.4) and a stretched explanation is a hint the closest predicates are far away — the project may be headed for De Novo. Note the fuzzy search is a pattern match: it doesn't handle negation ("not") well, and hardware devices can appear — filter by SaMD/AI ML to cut them.
How do you judge how far down fuzzy search results to go?
Use the relevancy signals: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether the target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, results are trailing off in relevancy.
4. Device detail page: chat and citations
Click a device name to open its detail page: device facts on the left, a chat window on the right. Ask something like "Describe the training data". The answer carries little citation bubbles — click one to jump to the highlighted passage in the source PDF, so you can verify every AI answer against the document. There's also a Download PDF button for sharing.
How do you verify an AI chat answer on the device detail page?
Click the citation bubbles to jump to the relevant highlight in the source document.
Reading rule for every project: how many summaries do you read in full?
At least the three most relevant 510(k) or De Novo summaries, in full. After that, use targeted chat questions to confirm your memory quickly. The tool supports this professional habit — it doesn't replace it.
5. Side-by-side comparison
Select multiple rows in the results table (aim for under ~10), then open the PDF Viewer tab. Ask one question — it goes to all selected devices in parallel, each with citations. This is the fastest way to compare and contrast devices: training data, PCCP scope, how they handled adding new scanners, and so on.
What does the side-by-side PDF viewer mode do?
Select multiple devices, open the PDF viewer tab, and ask one question (e.g., "Describe the training data"). It queries all selected devices simultaneously with citations, so you can compare and contrast quickly.
6. Collections
With rows selected, go to the Collections tab and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). Reload that selection any time — before a client call, pull up the collection and ask questions across all of its devices at once.
How do you save a set of selected devices for later use?
Select the rows, go to the Collections tab, and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). You can reload the selection anytime and carry it into the PDF viewer and other tabs that support selections.
7. Product codes and the regulations tree
Click a product code in the results to jump to it in the regulations tree — identification text, sibling product codes, and devices you can open in a PDF viewer on the right. Click a regulation number to see its identification, special controls, and related product codes. You can also search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree. Always read the special controls if any exist for your device — it broadens your search and sharpens pre-kickoff research.
What can you do from the regulations tree view?
Browse product codes and regulation numbers, read the identification text and special controls, browse sibling product codes, open device PDFs on the right, and search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree.
8. Chart view
Click Show Chart and segment by regulation number (or product code) to see which regulations dominate your result set. Clicking a regulation takes you into the regulations tree. Great for spotting that most matches are, say, hardware laparoscopic devices — a cue to go back and filter.
How do you see which regulations dominate a search result set?
Click "Show Chart" and segment by Regulation Number. Clicking a regulation takes you to the regulations tree.
9. The predicate graph
Open the Predicates tab for a family-tree view of predicate relationships. Click a node to trace its parents and children; selections from search carry over pre-selected. Commonly predicated devices are worth reading — a lot of people predicated them for a reason. The visual lineage is also handy on client calls, e.g. to show how a predicate family evolved and justify why your predicate still holds.
In the predicate graph, why are commonly predicated devices worth reading?
A lot of people predicated them for a reason. Clicking a node traces parents and children, and selections from search carry over pre-selected.
10. Embeddings: the galaxy map
The Embeddings tab plots every matching document in a 2-D "galaxy map" where semantically similar devices cluster together. Hover or click clusters to explore, and let AI label the clusters for you. Embeddings beat product codes for grouping: two devices can carry different product codes (LLZ vs. QIH) yet do the same thing — the embedding captures the meaning of the intended use and device story. This is also exactly how retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) works under the hood, and it makes a great visual on client calls.
Try it yourself
Head to the search page and work through a few of these AI/ML fuzzy searches to build intuition: perivascular fat on CT · aortic valve calcification opportunistic screening on noncontrast CT · breast cancer prediction on digital pathology slides · autism detection · gestational age prediction · a hearing aid that can also detect a pulse · foundation model based analysis of ECG · large language models · penetration test. Watch how the relevance scores, intended use, and AI Performance tables tell you when results stop being meaningful.