"The Stent Blog is a must-read resource"   -- ConcurringOpinions.com

What is
'The Voice
in the Ear'?


Who's Burt?

Archives

« send comment »

RSS Feed

October 7, 2005

Four Minus Two Equals Two -- Hands, That Is
Sounds like simple third grade arithmetic, but the profits of one of the largest device manufacturers may balance on such a simple equation. As reported by Reuters today, the success of Medtronic's Endeavor drug-eluting stent program is less dependent right now on whether or not the stent "works" than on obtaining the license to Rapid Exchange technology -- a design which allows one operator to perform a stent placement (i.e. "two hands") as opposed to the current configuration of two operators ("four hands").

Medtronic developed the Endeavor stent which has received the CE approval of the European Union. Results from the Endeavor III trial, which will compare the performance of the Endeavor to that of the Johnson & Johnson/Cordis Cypher stent, are scheduled to be presented at this year's TCT meeting on October 17.

And the preliminary results have been very good. According to Dr. Jean Fajadet, Clinique Pasteur Unité de Cardiologie Interventionnelle, Toulouse, France, “Endeavor represents a very important addition to the options we can offer our patients undergoing stent procedures.”

So here's the deal. Traditional angioplasty requires four hands: the cardiologist places one hand on the introducer sheath and the other on the balloon/stent catheter while his/her assistant manipulates the guide wire that everything else is anchored around. It's a complex four-handed procedure that requires precise coordination between the cardiologist and the assistant. The RX or rapid exchange system allows one person (two hands) to perform the entire procedure.This advance, pioneered by German cardiologist Dr. Tassilo Bonzel and California-based Dr. Paul Yock, is currently the "property" of three companies: Guidant, Johnson &Johnson, and Boston Scientific. It has obvious advantages, economic being at the top (one person vs. two).

The FTC may require that in order to pass muster to acquire Guidant, J&J must divest itself of exclusive RX technology and license it to other companies. And the thought is that J&J will license RX technology to Abbott and not Medtronic. Why? Because Medtronic is a more serious competitor to J&J than Abbott is.

The final irony? The drug that Medtronic has licensed to coat its stent is ABT-578 -- ABT being short for "Abbott", the drug's manufacturer.

Costello anyone?

« comment »        « back to top »