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: A MANUFACTURING REVIEW WAS NOT REQUIRED AS THIS IS THE ONLY COMPLAINT REPORTED TO DATE FOR THIS PRODUCT AND LOT. 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 DETACHMENT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED BASED UPON THE PROVIDED INFORMATION. LABELING REVIEW: AS THE REPORTED EVENT DID NOT ALLEGE A LABELING OR USE RELATED ISSUE, A LABELING REVIEW IS NOT REQUIRED. SECTION A THROUGH F: THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY BD REPRESENTS ALL OF 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) 2026, A PATIENT UNDERWENT A RECANALIZATION PROCEDURE USING THE CROSSER CATHETER. DURING THE PROCEDURE, THE TIP ALLEGEDLY FRACTURED DURING THE SECOND PASS WHEN USED ON CALCIFIED LESION. THE FRACTURED TIP WAS RETRIEVED USING A SNARE. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED USING ANOTHER DEVICE. THERE WAS NO REPORTED PATIENT INJURY.