Recorded device evidence

ZOOM (71, 55, 45, 35) Reperfusion Catheters; ZOOM Aspiration Tubing (K202182): indications, design and recorded evidence

The acquired K202182 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 2026-10-08. 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 43 selected decisions under primary code NRY. 43 have valid reported receipt/decision pairs; 0 pairs are missing or invalid.

Calendar elapsed days: lower quartile 55.5, median 122.0, upper quartile 178.5. These are recorded calendar differences, not active FDA review time.

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.

Research recordRecorded deviceReceipt → decisionCalendar elapsed daysRecorded submission type
K202182 ↗ · this pageZOOM (71, 55, 45, 35) Reperfusion Catheters; ZOOM Aspiration Tubing2020-08-04 → 2020-09-0229Special
K261089 ↗Radical 064 Reperfusion Catheter; Radical 076 Reperfusion Catheter; Radical Aspiration Tubing Kit2026-04-01 → 2026-09-14166Traditional
K260617 ↗Tigertriever 13 Ultra Revascularization Device2026-02-25 → 2026-08-28184Traditional
K262398 ↗CEREGLIDE 57 Intermediate Catheter; Cerenovus Aspiration Tubing set2026-07-14 → 2026-08-1330Special
K262399 ↗Millipede System2026-07-14 → 2026-08-1229Special

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.

Source snapshots: 5a86994ba49a37e71e09be96803fd51981c6c43eaa96caab41aea2b188bfe002.

Read beyond the decision row

Recorded evidence and differences to investigate

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.

Indications and users

K202182 · PDF page 6 ↗ Source 2

Read this statement in the original PDF; no complete statement fits the short excerpt.

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.

Design and operating principle

K202182 · PDF page 5 ↗ Source 3

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 evidence actually described

K202182 · PDF page 11 ↗ Source 4

Read this statement in the original PDF; no complete statement fits the short excerpt.

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.

Source factRecorded valueWhat to check
510(k) identifierK202182 [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Generic device categoryZOOM (71, 55, 45, 35) Reperfusion Catheters; ZOOM Aspiration Tubing [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Recorded applicantImperative Care, Inc. [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
FDA product codeNRY [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Decision date2020-09-02 [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Recorded decision codeSESE [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Submission typeSpecial [1]Dated official record fact; not proof of current commercial availability or applicability to another device.
Receipt date2020-08-04 [1]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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

What needs to happen first

Questions for providers

Sources and data dates

Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.

FDA openFDA — 510(k) decision records ↗

2026-10-05 · retrieved 2026-10-06

Audit details: precise locators and snapshot identifiers

Source key D01 · snapshot 5a86994ba49a37e71e09be96803fd51981c6c43eaa96caab41aea2b188bfe002

  • [1] device-510k-0001-of-0001.json:results[152234] · record 013a46fd121d0946096478bcb8f5e6b2e68681be1a83796283300651e7edb590
  • [5] Complete results array / fda-decision-context:K202182 · record whole dataset partition

FDA 510(k) summary — K202182 ↗

Fri, 04 Sep 2020 00:00:06 GMT · retrieved 2026-10-08

Audit details: precise locators and snapshot identifiers

Source key D02 · snapshot 103d20b6aba697d731e96fd3b12875c031aa7e6d560dc26fdf92d03c147f8ce6

  • [2] PDF page 6 · record db42d43f5a6e2ff5f5c15f128c48d510e4669c96f5b58200f152ec4029ec0ba1
  • [3] PDF page 5 · record f97d9b663440c91d5e5b5694389739001f5816865f362f4dccde77a5246b86b2
  • [4] PDF page 11 · record 4207258c08e99a9ae2aa3ffbdaa08dbece331ceb68db58103ad3a153470385fd

Prepare an editable project brief

Confirm the facts, scope and contact preference before sharing your project. Preparing this page sends no provider outreach.

Choose work packages to discuss

Compare FDA 510(k) Submission Services

Biocompatibility Testing (ISO 10993 Program)