Quote:
"For coronary stents, there is an incredible premium on stent performance," said Campbell Rogers, chief scientific officer for J&J's Cordis unit, in a telephone interview. "You need a Ferrari. The bioresorbable stent is a larger, bulkier stent. The likelihood of it being a significant advance for patients and clinicians in coronary use is not great."
This is the first I've heard that the bioresorbables are larger and bulkier. Not sure if that would be a negative for use in the jugulars.
Quote:
Abbott's main competitors in the stent market are in the early stages of evaluating dissolving devices. Most of their work is in places such as the leg where the larger size of an absorbable stent isn't a problem.
Stress and pressure on the legs can cause metal stents to fracture, making an absorbable device more attractive, said Sean Salmon, vice president and general manager of Minneapolis-based Medtronic's coronary and peripheral division.
Stress and pressure are also presumably greater in the neck, with higher likelihood of fracture.
Ninety days is a nice short length of time, presuming they are effective. One of the problems with stents is that they limit re-treatment options, because of the need to put a stent within a stent or that sort of thing. With resorbables, you wouldn't have that.