CROSSER

Additional Manufacturer Narrative

H11: THE CATALOG NUMBER IDENTIFIED IN SECTION D4 HAS NOT BEEN CLEARED IN THE US BUT IS SIMILAR TO THE CROSSER CTO RECANALIZATION CATHETERS PRODUCTS THAT ARE CLEARED IN THE US. THE PRO CODE AND 510 K NUMBER FOR THE CROSSER CTO RECANALIZATION CATHETERS PRODUCTS ARE IDENTIFIED IN D2 AND G4. MANUFACTURING REVIEW: THE DEVICE HISTORY RECORDS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED, AND THIS LOT MET ALL RELEASE CRITERIA. INVESTIGATION SUMMARY: THE PHYSICAL DEVICE WAS NOT RETURNED FOR EVALUATION. NO PHOTOS WERE PROVIDED FOR REVIEW. THEREFORE, THE INVESTIGATION IS INCONCLUSIVE FOR THE REPORTED FAILURE AS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED FOR REVIEW. A DEFINITIVE ROOT CAUSE FOR THE REPORTED MATERIAL SEPARATION COULD NOT BE DETERMINED BASED UPON THE PROVIDED INFORMATION. LABELLING REVIEW: AS THE REPORTED EVENT DID NOT ALLEGE A LABELING OR USE RELATED ISSUE, A LABELING REVIEW IS NOT REQUIRED. G3, H6 (COMPONENT, METHOD). SECTION A THROUGH F ¿ THE INFORMATION PROVIDE BY BD REPRESENTS ALL THE KNOWN INFORMATION AT THIS TIME. DESPITE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, THE COMPLAINANT/REPORTER WAS UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO PROVIDE ANY FURTHER PATIENT, PRODUCT, OR PROCEDURAL DETAILS TO BD.

Description of Event or Problem

ON (B)(6) 2025, A PATIENT UNDERWENT A RECANALIZATION PROCEDURE OF SEVERELY CALCIFIED ANTERIOR TIBIAL ARTERY BELOW THE KNEE VIA IPSILATERAL APPROACH USING THE CROSSER. DURING THE PROCEDURE, THE DISTAL TIP OF THE CROSSER WAS DETACHED 30 SECONDS AFTER THE START OF CR USE. IT WAS FURTHER REPORTED THAT A NEW CROSSER WAS USED TO SUCCESSFULLY PASS THE BALLOON. THE DETACHED TIP WAS NOT LEFT IN BODY. THERE WAS NO REPORTED PATIENT INJURY.

Additional Manufacturer Narrative

H11: THE CATALOG NUMBER IDENTIFIED IN SECTION D4 HAS NOT BEEN CLEARED IN THE US BUT IS SIMILAR TO THE CROSSER CTO RECANALIZATION CATHETERS PRODUCTS THAT ARE CLEARED IN THE US. THE PRO CODE AND 510 K NUMBER FOR THE CROSSER CTO RECANALIZATION CATHETERS PRODUCTS ARE IDENTIFIED IN D2 AND G4. AS THE LOT NUMBER FOR THE DEVICE WAS PROVIDED, A REVIEW OF THE DEVICE HISTORY RECORDS WAS PERFORMED. THE SAMPLE WAS NOT RETURNED TO THE MANUFACTURER FOR INSPECTION/EVALUATION. THEREFORE, THE INVESTIGATION OF THE REPORTED EVENT IS INCONCLUSIVE. BASED UPON THE AVAILABLE INFORMATION, THE DEFINITIVE ROOT CAUSE FOR THIS EVENT IS UNKNOWN. THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE (IFU) IS ADEQUATE FOR THE REPORTED DEVICE/PATIENT CODE(S) AND PROVIDES GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE, AS WELL AS WARNINGS, PRECAUTIONS AND POTENTIAL COMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVICE. UPON RECEIPT OF NEW OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, A FOLLOW-UP REPORT WILL BE SUBMITTED AS APPLICABLE. SECTION A THROUGH F ¿ THE INFORMATION PROVIDE BY BD REPRESENTS ALL THE KNOWN INFORMATION AT THIS TIME. DESPITE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, THE COMPLAINANT/REPORTER WAS UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO PROVIDE ANY FURTHER PATIENT, PRODUCT, OR PROCEDURAL DETAILS TO BD.

Description of Event or Problem

ON (B)(6) 2025, A PATIENT UNDERWENT A RECANALIZATION PROCEDURE OF SEVERELY CALCIFIED ANTERIOR TIBIAL ARTERY BELOW THE KNEE VIA IPSILATERAL APPROACH USING THE CROSSER, IT WAS REPORTED THAT DURING PROCEDURE, THE DISTAL TIP OF THE CROSSER WAS DETACHED 30 SECONDS AFTER THE START OF CR USE. IT WAS FURTHER REPORTED THAT A NEW CROSSER WAS USED TO SUCCESSFULLY PASS THE BALLOON. THE DETACHED TIP WAS NOT LEFT IN BODY. THERE WAS NO REPORTED PATIENT INJURY.