| 
			
			 Both companies already have approvals for their TAVR (transcatheter 
			aortic valve replacement) systems for use in patients too frail to 
			endure surgery and those deemed at intermediate risk. Approvals in 
			low-risk patients would open up a large new population for the 
			devices seen as vital growth drivers for the companies. 
 An estimated 165,000 low-risk patients suffer from severe aortic 
			stenosis each year in the United States, Western Europe and Japan, a 
			condition that can lead to heart failure in as little as two years, 
			Medtronic said.
 
 With TAVR, the replacement heart valve is threaded into place 
			through an artery via catheter, sparing patients chest-cracking 
			surgery.
 
 
			 
			"When I do these patients in the morning, (later that day) I find 
			them sitting in a chair, eating dinner, asking when they can go 
			home," said Dr. Michael Reardon, who led the Medtronic study. "As a 
			heart surgeon, there is no incision I can make that's small enough 
			to allow my surgical patients to do that well."
 
 Edwards, which holds about 70 percent of the U.S. TAVR market, said 
			it expects the global market to double to about $7 billion in 2024. 
			The two companies have similar market shares outside the United 
			States.
 
 The Edwards Sapien 3 TAVR system proved superior to surgery on the 
			main goal of its 1,000-patient trial, a composite of rate of stroke, 
			death and rehospitalization one year after the procedure. The rate 
			for TAVR was 8.5 percent versus 15.1 percent for surgery, data 
			unveiled at the American College of Cardiology scientific meeting in 
			New Orleans showed.
 
 At 30 days, the Sapien also resulted in a lower rate of stroke - 0.6 
			percent versus 2.4 percent - which had been the primary safety 
			concern when these systems were first introduced.
 
			
            [to top of second column] | 
            
			 
			Medtronic's rival Evolut TAVR system met the main goal of its 
			so-called non-inferiority trial in more than 1,400 low-risk 
			patients, proving as safe and effective as surgery, data presented 
			at the same meeting showed.
 The combined rate of all-cause death or disabling stroke after two 
			years was 5.3 percent for Evolut versus 6.7 percent for surgery, a 
			difference considered not statistically significant.
 
 At the 30-day mark, Evolut was significantly better on safety. With 
			TAVR, the composite rate of death or disabling stroke was 0.8 
			percent versus 2.6 percent for surgery. TAVR was also better on 
			other safety measures after 30 days.
 
 TAVR systems can cost about five times as much as traditional 
			replacement heart valves, providing a significant source of revenue 
			for the companies. But they can be more cost effective overall due 
			to much shorter hospital stays and recovery times.
 
 Jefferies analyst Raj Denhoy said he expects the TAVR market to grow 
			in both size and competition, with Boston Scientific's Lotus system 
			poised for potential U.S. approval this year.
 
 TAVR "is pretty dramatic technology and it should be used in a lot 
			more patients than it's being used in already," Denhoy said.
 
 (This story corrects the day of the scheduled presentation, typo on 
			number of patients in paragraph 9)
 
 (Reporting by Tamara Mathias in Bengaluru; editing by Bill Berkrot)
 
			[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
				reserved.] Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.  
			Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |