Big Announcement Soon

U speak the truth. This could very well take down their entire lead portfolio. This will surpass anything a med device company has ever faced and its 100% their fault. Sound as if the FDA is considering mdt's work in optim and calling stj out for not properly vetting optim.

I guess the "Whisper Campaign" MDT was accused of should have been taken as a "kind warning". The bashing we took was nothing more than telling the truth that no one wanted to hear.

I'm sorry for all the STJ reps that I hurt but proud to stand in front of the loyal STJ implanters who gave me grief and continued to implant Durata after all they knew about the shared design features of Riata. It's all about the pt's! Do the right thing...all of the time! Not when it's convenient or relationship loyalty gets in the way. A lot of valuable lessons are being learned from this at the price of many.

This is not about company versus company...it's about industry image and practicing standard of care that affects everyone.

Happy ThanksGIVING everyone!
 






Medtronic's whisper campaign wasn't exactly unfounded


The decision by Medtronic, the nation’s biggest producer of heart devices, raises more questions about the safety of the St. Jude component — an electrical wire that connects an implanted defibrillator to a patient’s heart — and about how executives of that company have responded to those issues.

St. Jude executives have repeatedly insisted the wire, or “lead,” known as the Durata, is safe. Asked about the new study, which was sponsored by Medtronic, a spokeswoman for St. Jude said in a statement that numerous studies and tests had demonstrated the safety of the insulating material used in the Durata.

“We do not rely on Medtronic to confirm the safety and reliability of material we use in our products,” the statement, by Amy Jo Meyer, said.

Shares of St. Jude fell more than 12 percent Wednesday, to $31.37, after the Food and Drug Administration released a plant inspection report that found significant problems in the company’s testing and oversight of the Durata. The stock price represented a three-year low.

The F.D.A. report, which raises the prospect of potential agency action against St. Jude, appears to be the latest misstep by company executives in dealing with questions from investors and doctors about the safety of the Durata and an earlier heart device lead called the Riata, which the company has recalled.

In October, St. Jude executives released the F.D.A. report as part of a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission but blocked all references in it to the Durata. In taking the unusual action, the company stated that it believed the F.D.A. would make similar redactions when it released the report in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, but the agency did not do so.

Earlier this year, St. Jude’s chief executive, Daniel J. Starks, also publicly criticized a heart device expert, Dr. Robert G. Hauser, after he raised questions about the safety of the Riata and the Durata. Mr. Starks then sought to have a medical journal retract an article written by Dr. Hauser. The publication refused.

“It’s becoming increasingly difficult to defend Durata,” one Wall Street analyst, Lawrence Biegelsen of Wells Fargo Securities, wrote Wednesday in a note to investors in which he downgraded St. Jude stock to hold from buy. He added that the release of the full F.D.A. report was “likely to heighten concerns” among doctors about using the Durata lead.

The Medtronic-sponsored study at issue appeared in the November issue of a scientific journal, Macromolecules, which is published by the American Chemical Society, a professional group.

In it, researchers looked at the durability of two chemically related insulating materials. One material that St. Jude calls Optim is used in the Durata. Medtronic was interested in using the other material, called Pursil 35, in a new heart device lead it was developing. Both products belong to a class of materials known as silicone-based polyurethanes.

The products were developed by different companies in an effort to solve a longstanding problem. Over time, insulating materials used in implanted devices are broken down by bodily fluids, exposing them to possible electrical failure and even short circuits that can prevent a device, like a defibrillator, from working when needed to save a life.

Recent episodes involving failures of heart devices or their components have involved failures of the insulating materials used in them.

In the study, both Optim and Pursil 35 were exposed in laboratory tests to water and heating techniques aimed to accelerate aging of the materials. While the Pursil 35 material changed faster than Optim, both materials lost substantial strength in the tests, said Dr. Frank S. Bates, a professor at the University of Minnesota and a Medtronic consultant who was involved in the study.

A spokesman for Medtronic, Christopher Garland, said the study results led the company recently to cancel the development of a new lead that would have used Pursil 35 as an insulating material. St. Jude has an exclusive arrangement with the developer of Optim to use it in heart device leads. Mr. Garland said that Medtronic had also been looking at that material’s use in other kinds of medical devices.

He added that Medtronic was working with producers of both materials to find ways to resolve some of the problems detected in the laboratory study.

Dr. James Runt, a professor at Pennsylvania State University who is a St. Jude consultant, said that the Medtronic study struck him as an “outlier” because both internal St. Jude studies and external reviews had supported the durability of
 






Medtronic's whisper campaign wasn't exactly unfounded

Any anti-selling in the past has nothing to do with this materials report that was just issued. The question that should have always been asked is what is the analysis (i.e. test data) that demonstrates Durata will perform differently than Riata. STJ has always been silent when asked that question. This new materials report has absolutely nothing to do with Riata & Durata failures or failures of any other product.
 






Any anti-selling in the past has nothing to do with this materials report that was just issued. The question that should have always been asked is what is the analysis (i.e. test data) that demonstrates Durata will perform differently than Riata. STJ has always been silent when asked that question. This new materials report has absolutely nothing to do with Riata & Durata failures or failures of any other product.

U r half right. The new report indicts all stj leads. U can't use a lead that has biodegradable insulation. Devastating report. The lead design of Riata& Durata ate to blame for vast majority of failures. This article is just icing on the cake.
 






U r half right. The new report indicts all stj leads. U can't use a lead that has biodegradable insulation. Devastating report. The lead design of Riata& Durata ate to blame for vast majority of failures. This article is just icing on the cake.

And by "lead design of Riata & Durata are to blame", you mean the loosey-goosey cables in the extra large lumens? Why don't they just fix that post-haste?
 












I wonder if warning letter remediation will require improvements in the return product, CAPA and complaints such that a better picture of real Durata performance emerges.

That's assuming products get returned. How many Durata and Riata leads are not being extracted, just capped and a new lead implanted???
 


















yawn....

all the dates for this supposed announcement came and went with nothing coming of it.

you know why? because there's no evidence that there's a problem with Durata.

Omg. There is one article with a pic and I hear of new Durata failures weekly with more articles in the works. There is mounting evidence against Durata and now the FDA is on Durata. These things took time. The first Riata failure was in 2005 and stj waited to communicate until >1000 failures. So it will be months before Durata is recalled. The problem is te warning letter will prevent stj from releasing a new shitty lead.
 






Omg. There is one article with a pic and I hear of new Durata failures weekly with more articles in the works. There is mounting evidence against Durata and now the FDA is on Durata. These things took time. The first Riata failure was in 2005 and stj waited to communicate until >1000 failures. So it will be months before Durata is recalled. The problem is te warning letter will prevent stj from releasing a new shitty lead.

Publish it or submit a link to a published article. There is all this bullshit on this board about articles that do not exist, calls that never happen, and products that aren't being recall. Unless you've got something factual stfu and move some product.
 






Publish it or submit a link to a published article. There is all this bullshit on this board about articles that do not exist, calls that never happen, and products that aren't being recall. Unless you've got something factual stfu and move some product.

Hey dipshit there's a recent Durata article link already posted in at least 2 places. There's also the Hauser article that had Riata and Durata (optim leads) on here as well. That article showed failure to deliver therapy on optim leads from failure under the shock coils. So some research lazy ass.
 






Publish it or submit a link to a published article. There is all this bullshit on this board about articles that do not exist, calls that never happen, and products that aren't being recall. Unless you've got something factual stfu and move some product.

If stj waited until there was > 1000 Riata failures what makes you think they will report trends w Durata? They simply won't do it. There's to much at stake for them if they are transparent. It will be up to physicians to publish these failures and to put pressure on stj. Their registries are a joke. No fluoro and no hv shocks to look for failures. What a joke.
 






If stj waited until there was > 1000 Riata failures what makes you think they will report trends w Durata? They simply won't do it. There's to much at stake for them if they are transparent. It will be up to physicians to publish these failures and to put pressure on stj. Their registries are a joke. No fluoro and no hv shocks to look for failures. What a joke.

All trends are with the FDA. The public does not.