Embolic Protection: Better Outcomes Not Enough
This article was originally published in Start Up
For 20 years, interventional cardiologists denied the need for embolic protection devices, considering embolic events to generally be the infrequent results of poor technique. Nevertheless, recent data has revealed embolization as a potentially serious and relatively common event during percutaneous coronary interventions. While embolic protection devices have been shown to dramatically reduce embolic complications, physician adoption is slow. Several companies are developing different approaches to protect against embolization, recognizing that better patient data alone isn't enough to convince interventionalists to employ these devices.
You may also be interested in...
While the debate continues about whether embolic protection devices are really necessary, the space continues to generate interest from investors, start-ups and large companies looking for new technologies. Despite the unfulfilled promise of the past decade, interest has spread to new interventional applications such as percutaneous heart valves, indicating that this area remains a viable opportunity for start-ups.
Today, carotid artery stenting is an accepted less-invasive alternative to surgical endarterectomy for carefully selected patients, particularly those at significant surgical risk, and market projections are very positive. But, the field still has a long way to go before this procedure is considered routine.
A short summary of recent product developments in the Orthopedics/Spine, Aesthetics, Stent, Surgery, and Vascular Markets.