K962639 · Impra, Inc. · DSY · Oct 3, 1996 · Cardiovascular
Device Facts
Record ID
K962639
Device Name
IMPRA CARBOFLO EPTFE VASCULAR GRAFT
Applicant
Impra, Inc.
Product Code
DSY · Cardiovascular
Decision Date
Oct 3, 1996
Decision
SESP
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 870.3450
Device Class
Class 2
Attributes
Therapeutic, Real-World Evidence
Real-World Evidence
Submission
Device
Sponsor
RWD Sources
RWE Use Summary
Key Tags
K962639 · Oct 3, 1996
IMPRA CARBOFLO EPTFE VASCULAR GRAFT
Impra, Inc.
Published clinical literature; Clinical experience reports
Published literature was used to compare the risk factor profile of the study population to the broader US patient population treated for peripheral vascular disease to establish clinical relevance.
Peripheral vascular disease; Risk factor comparison; Literature review
Clinical Evidence
Study Design
Population
Comparator
Key Endpoints
Comparison of study risk factors to US patient population; Retrospective comparison of clinical cohorts
Patients treated for peripheral vascular disease in the US
Study clinical trial population
Comparison of patient risk factors (e.g., smoking status)
Indications for Use
IMPRA Carboflo™ ePTFE Vascular Grafts are intended for use in peripheral vascular applications to replace or bypass diseased or occluded blood vessels.
Device Story
IMPRA Carboflo™ ePTFE Vascular Graft is a synthetic vascular prosthesis; constructed from expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) with USP grade activated charcoal particles impregnated into the luminal wall (approx. 20-25% of wall thickness). Carbon integration occurs during a singular extrusion process, creating a monolithic structure. Device is used by vascular surgeons in clinical settings to replace or bypass occluded peripheral vessels. Carbon inclusion aims to reduce surface thrombogenicity and platelet accumulation compared to standard ePTFE grafts. Clinical performance is evaluated via patency rates and adverse event monitoring. The device is supplied in various configurations, sterilized, and handled similarly to standard ePTFE grafts.
Clinical Evidence
Multi-center, prospective, randomized clinical trial (n=160; 81 Carboflo, 79 Standard) comparing patency in lower extremity vascular disease over 24 months. Primary patency: 36.8% (Carboflo) vs 27.7% (Standard). Secondary patency: 42.7% (Carboflo) vs 32.3% (Standard). Differences were not statistically significant (p=0.05). Adverse events, including thrombosis, infection, and amputation, were comparable between groups. Pre-clinical animal studies (dogs/rabbits) showed significantly higher thrombus-free surface area and reduced platelet accumulation for Carboflo grafts.
Technological Characteristics
Material: ePTFE with USP grade activated charcoal (<1% total weight). Construction: Monolithic extruded wall with carbon-impregnated luminal layer. Form factor: Tubular vascular graft with external PTFE beading. Sterilization: Same as predicate. Connectivity: N/A. Software: None.
Indications for Use
Indicated for patients with peripheral vascular disease requiring replacement or bypass of diseased or occluded blood vessels.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A vascular graft prosthesis is an implanted device intended to repair, replace, or bypass sections of native or artificial vessels, excluding coronary or cerebral vasculature, and to provide vascular access. It is commonly constructed of materials such as polyethylene terephthalate and polytetrafluoroethylene, and it may be coated with a biological coating, such as albumin or collagen, or a synthetic coating, such as silicone. The graft structure itself is not made of materials of animal origin, including human umbilical cords.
Special Controls
*Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is the FDA guidance document entitled “Guidance Document for Vascular Prostheses 510(k) Submissions.”
Predicate Devices
IMPRA ePTFE Vascular Graft
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
K962639
# Summary of Safety and Effectiveness for IMPRA Carboflo™ ePTFE Vascular Graft
## SUBMITTER
Rajagopal R. Kowligi, Ph.D
Senior Clinical Research Specialist
IMPRA, Inc.
1625 West Third Street
Tempe, AZ 85281
OCT - 3 1996
## DATE SUMMARY WAS PREPARED
June 18, 1996
## NAME OF THE DEVICE
IMPRA Carboflo™ ePTFE Vascular Graft
## IDENTIFICATION OF PREDICATE DEVICE
IMPRA ePTFE Vascular Graft
## DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVICE
IMPRA Carboflo™ ePTFE Vascular Grafts are made primarily of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) using the same manufacturing procedures that are used to manufacture IMPRA ePTFE Vascular Grafts, the devices to which substantial equivalence is claimed. The region of the graft wall adjacent to the lumen, approximately 20-25% of the total wall thickness, is uniformly impregnated with Carbon particles along the entire length of the graft. The carbon impregnated region is formed integral to the outer region of the wall by mixing the PTFE resin mixed with carbon particles, with the non-carbon containing PTFE resin during a singular extrusion process, which results in a monolithic graft wall. The carbon used in the device is USP grade activated charcoal. All other components of the Carboflo graft, namely PTFE, lubricant used as a manufacturing aid, blue pigment incorporated in the orientation lines, and the external support PTFE beading are the same as those used in the manufacture of the predicate devices. These grafts are supplied in the same product configurations as the predicate device, and are packaged, labeled, and sterilized in the same manner as the predicate devices.
Extensive bench testing and microscopic analysis has shown that the carbon
{1}
particles are an integral part of the wall and cannot be separated. The amount of carbon incorporated in each Carboflo vascular graft is less than 1% of the total weight of the graft.
## INTENDED USE
IMPRA Carboflo™ ePTFE Vascular Grafts are intended for use in peripheral vascular applications to replace or bypass diseased or occluded blood vessels.
## COMPARISON OF THE DEVICE CHARACTERISTICS TO THE PREDICATE
Physical properties of the Carboflo vascular grafts were compared to the values for Standard IMPRA ePTFE vascular grafts, using methods recommended by the AAMI Vascular Graft Standard or the FDA Guidance Document on Vascular Prostheses. Testing of a variety of product types shows that the addition of carbon particles into the graft wall did not affect the physical properties of the Carboflo grafts. Both the new device and predicate device undergo the same testing and evaluation procedures. The acceptance criteria for both the new device and predicate devices are the same.
## NON-CLINICAL TESTING
Carbon containing surfaces in medical devices, e.g. Heart valves, have been shown to impart anti-thrombogenic properties¹. Short-term pre-clinical studies have been conducted with IMPRA Carboflo™ ePTFE Vascular Grafts to determine the performance of carbon containing blood contact surface. Animal studies comparing the Carboflo grafts with Standard IMPRA ePTFE grafts have shown that the inside surfaces of the Carboflo grafts have a significantly higher Thrombus Free Surface Area after 3 months². Patencies of both Carboflo and Standard grafts were similar. Short-term animal studies in dogs and rabbits have shown that the Carboflo inside surfaces have reduced platelet accumulation when compared to Standard ePTFE vascular grafts, suggesting that the addition of carbon particles reduces the thrombogenicity of the surface³.
---
¹ References on file
² Data on file
³ References on file
{2}
CLINICAL INFORMATION
A multi-center, prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing IMPRA Carboflo™ ePTFE Vascular Grafts to commercially available ePTFE Vascular Grafts, was performed in France between 1990-1994. The purpose of the investigation was to compare the patencies of both IMPRA Carboflo ePTFE Vascular Grafts and Standard ePTFE Vascular Grafts. A total of 81 patients received Carboflo grafts and 79 received Standard ePTFE grafts. All grafts were implanted to treat lower extremity vascular disease. Of the 160 grafts, only 5 grafts (3 Carboflo, 2 Standard) were considered to be Above-Knee, and the remaining grafts were all Below-Knee.
73% of the distal anastomoses were direct graft to vessel, with the following types comprising the other anastomoses: venous patch (16%), distal arterio-venous fistula (5.8%), or interpositional vein cuff graft (5.2%). All implanted grafts were followed for at least 24 months, or until failure, lost to follow-up, or death of patient. Adverse events were recorded and documented on Case Report Forms (CRF).
## Analysis
PRIMARY PATENCY was defined as the time between implant date and date of follow-up when the graft was patent, prior to the first intervention to correct complications. Interventions included immediate re-operations to correct any complication post implantation. SECONDARY PATENCY was defined as the time between implant date and date on which the graft is no longer patent or useful, after a series of interventions. Conventional life-tables were then constructed to determine the Cumulative Primary and Secondary Patencies. At the end of the 2 yr follow-up, patencies were as follows:
Cumulative Primary Patency for Carboflo grafts was 36.8% compared to 27.7% for Standard grafts at the end of 24 months.
Cumulative Secondary Patency for Carboflo grafts was 42.7% compared to 32.3% for Standard grafts.
These results are not statistically significantly different at p = 0.05.
DEVICE SAFETY was demonstrated by determining adverse events for both Carboflo and Standard grafts. Complications were counted as they were encountered and added up at the end of the study period for each patient. The results are tabulated below:
{3}
COMPLICATIONS: CARBOFLO VS. STANDARD
| Adverse event | Device Type | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Standard | Carboflo |
| No. At Start | 79 | 81 |
| No. LFU @2yrs * | 7 | 17 |
| No. Patent @2yrs | 17 | 16 |
| No. Immed. Redos | 6 | 12 |
| No. Failed @2yrs | 52 | 43 |
| Thrombosis | 34 | 26 |
| False aneurysm | 1 | 1 |
| Infection | 5 | 4 |
| Other adverse events | 2 | 3 |
| Amputation | 26 | 28 |
| Deaths | 16 | 13 |
* LFU = Lost to follow-up
It is important to note that no new type of complications were identified with Carboflo grafts.
RISK FACTORS in patients with Carboflo and Standard ePTFE Vascular Grafts were similar (p > 0.05), except for Smoking. There were a higher number of patients who were smokers, in the Carboflo group (p<0.05). The risk factors for the patients in this study were then compared to the risk factors for patients in USA who had treatment for peripheral vascular disease (information was summarized from published literature). Risk factors were comparable for both groups (p>0.05), except for Smoking. There were a higher number of patients who were smokers, in the US (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION
IMPRA ePTFE Carboflo Vascular Grafts are substantially equivalent to the currently marketed IMPRA ePTFE Vascular Grafts.
{4}
# References
Topic: Carbon containing surfaces- biocompatibility, performance
1. Gott, V. L.; et al.: "The anticlot properties of graphite coatings on artificial heart valves." *Carbon*, 1:378, 1964.
2. Haubold, A. D.; et al.: "Carbon in medical devices." *Biocompatibility of Clinical Implant Materials*, Vol. II, edited by D. F. Williams, p. 3, 1983.
3. Olcott, E. L.: "Pyrolytic biocarbon materials." *Journal of Biomedical Research Symposium*, No. 5 (Part 1), 209, 1974.
4. Adams, D.; et al.: "Carbon fiber-reinforced carbon as a potential implant material." *Journal of Biomedical Material Research*, 12:35, 1978.
5. Homsy, C. A.: "Biocompatibility of perfluorinated polymers and composites of these polymers." *Biocompatibility of Clinical Implant Materials*, Vol II, edited by D. F. Williams, p. 59, 1981.
6. Lipsig, L. J.; et al.: "Clinical experience with transcutaneous vascular access." *Dialysis and Transplantation*, 13(12):786, December 1984.
7. Gott, V. L.; et al.: "Heparin bonding on colloidal graphite surfaces." *Science*, 142:1297, April 1963.
8. Whiffen, J. D.; et al.: "Heparin application to graphite coated intravascular prostheses." *Surgery*, 56(2):404, August 1964.
9. Gott, V. L.; et al.: "Techniques of applying a graphite-benzalkonium-heparin coating to various plastics and metals." *Transactions American Society of Artificial Internal Organs*, 10:213, 1964.
10. Haubold, A. D.; et al.: "Ultra-low temperature isotropically (ULTI) deposited carbon (Biolyte): a promising new flexible blood interface material." *Cardiovascular Diseases*, 4(4):369, 1977.
11. Sharp, W. V.; et al.: "Pyrolytic carbon-coated grafts." *Graft Materials in Vascular Surgery*, edited by H. Pardik, p. 203, 1978.
12. Sharp, W. V.: "Present Status of carbon grafts." *Vascular Grafting: Clinical Applications of Techniques*, edited by J. Wright, p. 326, 1983.
{5}
13. Debski, R.; et al.: "Polytetrafluoroethylene grafts coated with ULTI carbon." Transactions American Society of Artificial Internal Organs, 28:456, 1982.
14. Sharp, W. V.; et al.: "A bioelectric polyurethane elastomer for intravascular replacement." Transactions American Society of Artificial Internal Organs, 12:179, 1966.
15. Sharp, W. V.: "Bioelectric properties of the vascular system as related to artificial internal organs." Surgery, 61(5):763, May 1967.
16. Sharp, W. V.; et al.: "Electrolour: a new vascular interface." Transactions American Society of Artificial Internal Organs, 14:73, 1968.
17. Taylor, B. C.; et al.: "The importance of the zeta potential, ultrastructure, and electrical conductivity of the in-vivo performance of polyurethane-carbon black vascular prostheses." Transactions American Society of Artificial Internal Organs, 17:22, 1971.
18. Miller, B. G.; et al.: "Electrical conductivity: effect on intravascular performance of foams, velour, flock, and fabric." Transactions American Society of Artificial Internal Organs, 20:91, 1974.
19. Bokros, J. C.; et al.: "Control of structure of carbon for use in bioengineering." Chemistry and Physics of Carbon, Vol. 9, edited by F. L. Walker, Jr., Marcel Dekker, New York, 1973.
20. Baier, R. E.; et al.: "Surface chemical evaluation of thromboresistant materials before and after venous implantation." Transactions American society of Artificial Internal Organs, 16:50, 1970.
21. Sawyer, P. N.; et al.: "Bio-electric phenomena as an etiologic factor in intravascular thrombosis." American Journal of Physiology, 175:103, October 1953.
22. Sawyer, P. N.; et al.: "Relations of abnormal and injury electrical potential differences in intravascular thrombosis." American Journal of Physiology, 175:108, October 1953.
23. Sawyer, P. N.; et al.: "Electric potential differences across the normal aorta and aortic grafts of dogs." American Journal of Physiology, 175:113, October 1953.
24. Goldfarb, D.; et al.: "Graphite-expanded polytetrafluoroethylene: an improved small artery prosthesis." Transactions American Society of Artificial Internal Organs, 23:268, 1977.
25. Schmidt, S. P., Ph. D.; et al.: "In vivo performance of carbon-coated PTFE vascular grafts in a canine model." Presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Society for Biomaterials, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, USA, April 28 - May 2, 1989.
{6}
26. Tsuchida, Hiromitsu, M.D., Ph. D.; et al.: "Modified polytetrafluoroethylene: Indium 111-labeled platelet deposition on carbon-lined and high-porosity polytetrafluoroethylene grafts." Journal of Vascular Surgery, 16(4):643-650, October 1992.
27. Babatasi, G.; et al.: "Indium-labelled platelet deposition in carbon-lined modified polytetrafluoroethylene grafts in an experimental model: aortic replacement in rabbits. Effects of heparin and hirudin." Cardiovascular Surgery, September 1994.
28. Bacourt, F.; A.U.R.C. (Group of University hospitals): "Etude Prospective Randomisee Comparative de Protheses PTFE carbone et PTFE standard in Position Sous-articulaire." Presented at the meeting of French Speaking Vascular Society (IX Congress: SCV en langue française, June 16, 1994).
29. Baste, J. C.; et al.: "Etude Prospective Comparative D'Une Protheses PTFE Carbone Versus Prothese Standard Dans Les Abords Vasculaires Pour Hemodialyse Chronique-Resultats A Un An." Presented at the meeting of French Speaking Vascular Society (VIII Congress: SCV en langue française, June 24 - 26, 1993).
30. Bourquelot, P. D.; et al.: "Pontages PTFE-Carbone et PTFE-Standard en Hemodialyse etude Preliminaire a 36 mois - N = 97." Presented at the meeting of French Speaking Vascular Society (VIII Congress: SCV en langue française, June 24 - 26, 1993).
31. Ruehland, D., M.D.: "Use of IMPRA Carbon-Lined PTFE Prostheses: A Preliminary Report." Unpublished, IMPRA ePTFE Carbon-Lined Vascular Graft Design File.
32. Moggi, L. MD, "Reconstructive Surgery: Developments in Grafts", Critical Ischaemia, Vol. 4, no.3, 71-76.
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.