Reconnaissance PV .018 OTW Digital IVUS Catheter (K200410): indications, design and recorded evidence
The acquired K200410 file contains product-specific indications and users, design and operating principle, performance evidence actually described sections. Compare these dated manufacturer statements with your own indication and design before commissioning evidence work. They describe this submission; they do not prescribe your testing, validate performance independently or establish a suitable predicate.
Evidence retrieved 2026-10-07. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.
Computed exact-code research
This decision beside its recorded product-code cohort
The 2021–2025 complete-year cohort contains 19 selected decisions under primary code OBJ. 19 have valid reported receipt/decision pairs; 0 pairs are missing or invalid.
No quartiles are displayed: this complete-year cohort has fewer than 20 valid pairs.
The table shows the named decision and up to four latest exact-code research records through 2026-09-27. It can include partial-year records outside the complete-year cohort. The quartiles above use the full stated cohort, not this displayed selection.
Use this comparison: select a record to investigate, read its actual indications and design, and document differences. A shared code or elapsed period cannot establish its relevance to your device.
Calendar elapsed days are not active FDA review time, a promised schedule or a success probability. The selection includes only the stated recorded decisions, not all applications. Latest records can postdate the named historical decision and are contextual research, not its predicates. Shared codes, summaries and observed records do not prove equivalence, current market availability, buyer applicability or predicate suitability.
Calculation, selection and source versions
Reuse the complete-endpoint exact-primary-code, documented SE-decision cohort and its stated cutoff/window. Retain its type-7 quartiles only when at least 20 valid date pairs are present. Independently subtract the named official record’s receipt date from its decision date; missing or negative pairs remain unknown. Show up to four latest exact-code research records, excluding the named ID. Parent analysis hash, source snapshots and calculation versions are retained.
Calculation: fda-named-decision-cohort-context-1; cutoff 2026-09-27; 0 parent records excluded; units record counts; calendar elapsed days.
The summary is manufacturer-submitted context hosted by FDA. Negative/no-study statements are preserved. Evidence themes are not binding legal requirements.
Short opening excerpts identify the source sections. Read the linked original for the full study context, negative statements, tables and limitations. Public quotations are limited to 120 words per acquired summary; the internal evidence packet retains exact section ranges for review.
The Reconnaissance PV .018 Digital IVUS catheter is designed for use
in the evaluation of vascular morphology in blood vessels of the
peripheral vasculature by providing a cross-sectional image of such
vessels.
The excerpt is shortened at a complete statement. Read the complete section in the original PDF before interpreting the evidence.
Compare with your product: Compare the recorded indication, population, body site and use environment with your proposed label. Record each change instead of assuming the primary code settles intended use.
Read this statement in the original PDF; no complete statement fits the short excerpt.
Compare with your product: Compare physical design, materials, energy, accessories and operating principle with your design. Ask which documented differences change the evidence scope.
Performance testing completed for a determination of substantial
equivalence include the fo l lo w i ng:
• Design Verification-The Reconnaissance catheter was
verified to pre-determined acceptance criteria using
appropriate sample sizes.
The excerpt is shortened at a complete statement. Read the complete section in the original PDF before interpreting the evidence.
Compare with your product: The source labels this section as performance data. Determine which described evidence is bench, software, biological or clinical from the actual narrative and original tables; the section label alone does not settle that distinction or prescribe your testing.
Extraction selection and limits
Select observed whole-line section headings or explicit colon-delimited inline labels on readable PDF pages, including the explicitly documented heading-spacing variants in this parser version. Preserve the original heading, character ranges and layout; do not repair excerpt text. Exclude letter boilerplate and uncertain pages. Stop at observed table headings; do not infer table columns or scalar results from layout text. Multi-column or suspicious split-numeric excerpts are excluded until reviewed alternate extraction is available. Original layout records remain retained; any alternate text has its own extractor-version locator and requires original-page review. For each dimension, prefer usable versioned alternate text where available, selecting its longest usable excerpt; otherwise select the longest usable original-layout excerpt. Ties preserve source order. Bounded to 64 PDF pages and 3,500 characters per section. This is a selection, not a complete dossier analysis.
Excluded extraction items: {}.
Known facts and deciding inputs
Known context: US. Confirm the organisation’s role, relevant activities and markets against the cited criteria.
Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Prepare a differences and evidence worksheet
Use this checklist to gather your business or product details before speaking with a specialist. The items below explain what to record and suggest useful supporting documents. You can add your own answers in the editable project brief.
Indications and users — what differs in our product?
Compare the recorded indication, population, body site and use environment with your proposed label. Record each change instead of assuming the primary code settles intended use.
Useful evidence: Our proposed indication, user/population and use environment beside this exact recorded indication.
Design and operating principle — what differs in our product?
Compare physical design, materials, energy, accessories and operating principle with your design. Ask which documented differences change the evidence scope.
Useful evidence: Design description, materials/components, accessory list and a differences matrix.
Performance evidence actually described — what differs in our product?
The source labels this section as performance data. Determine which described evidence is bench, software, biological or clinical from the actual narrative and original tables; the section label alone does not settle that distinction or prescribe your testing.
Useful evidence: The cited narrative and full tables, underlying protocols/results and a reviewed comparison with the proposed product.
Work packages and dependencies
Conditional: Indication, design and evidence-gap comparison — Compare the named summary and underlying official records with the proposed product; document the differences, applicable route questions and evidence gaps before agreeing submission or testing deliverables.
Optional: Biological evaluation and material/contact differences — The recorded source mentions this evidence topic, including possible negative statements. Discuss this package only if the proposed product’s design/use, source differences and current requirements justify it; the recorded case is not a mandatory testing checklist.
What needs to happen first
FDA 510(k) Submission Services → Biocompatibility Testing (ISO 10993 Program): Define the proposed indication/design and compare the original source context; commission this optional work only after its separate evidence need is justified.
Questions for providers
Which specific differences from the cited indication, design and operating principle change our proposed evidence work?
What source limitations or missing protocols/results must be resolved before treating this recorded evidence as comparable?
Which additional records and current guidance support the proposed route, and how will the comparison avoid assuming predicate suitability?
Sources and data dates
Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.
