Cameron Health S-ICD

Quote
We have the best ICD leads..
ICD leads are unnecessary.
We have the best ICD leads.
ICD leads are unnecessary
We have the best ICD leads
ICD leads are unnecessary.

Who gives a fuck.! Too many infections, inapp shocks, no ATP.
And more importantly the most clueless sale force in the business selling it.
 






Here's some feed back from my doc's that were targeted, trained and implanted a couple of these devices...."Pt's are complaining of continuous discomfort. I will not implant another one until they come up with much smaller generations."

Any ETA on next generation? Here's the catch...how small can you make it to ensure Rx energy will be enough? Someone determined 80j was necessary which drives the device size. How will you prove and convince FDA and physicians that a smaller device with less energy will be sufficient? Oh yeah....the current device only has a 4 yr longevity...will this be even less than 4yr???

You guys have a lot of questions to answer....hasn't the industry standard been to increase, not decrease, joule capacity? Especially with a device relying on successful Rx through skeletal structure. Talk about working backwards.
 






Anonymous said:
Here's some feed back from my doc's that were targeted, trained and implanted a couple of these devices...."Pt's are complaining of continuous discomfort. I will not implant another one until they come up with much smaller generations."

Any ETA on next generation? Here's the catch...how small can you make it to ensure Rx energy will be enough? Someone determined 80j was necessary which drives the device size. How will you prove and convince FDA and physicians that a smaller device with less energy will be sufficient? Oh yeah....the current device only has a 4 yr longevity...will this be even less than 4yr???

You guys have a lot of questions to answer....hasn't the industry standard been to increase, not decrease, joule capacity? Especially with a device relying on successful Rx through skeletal structure. Talk about working backwards.
Click to expand...

S-ICD 1.5 should be released in Q4. S-ICD 2.0 hopefully will be released in Q2 next year.
 












Anonymous said:
Will either have ATP, lower inapp shocks, less risk of infection.?
Nope, because that's a fundamental design flaw..!
Anyway, aren't your ICD leads the best.? You poor saps just don't get it do you.?
Click to expand...

It's very interesting that a rep that doesn't have the technology stays in here bashing it continually. Why? If improved upon successfully and pacing capabilities enhanced this technology will in time dominate the market. Juat basic enhancements to the technology will yield increase usage alone. So it makes sense to me that you keep whining.
 












Anonymous said:
It's very interesting that a rep that doesn't have the technology stays in here bashing it continually. Why? If improved upon successfully and pacing capabilities enhanced this technology will in time dominate the market. Juat basic enhancements to the technology will yield increase usage alone. So it makes sense to me that you keep whining.
Click to expand...

Please tell us how you can basically enhance this to deliver ATP..?

I know.! Connect it to the RV using an electrode...Genius.!!
 






Anonymous said:
It's very interesting that a rep that doesn't have the technology stays in here bashing it continually. Why? If improved upon successfully and pacing capabilities enhanced this technology will in time dominate the market. Juat basic enhancements to the technology will yield increase usage alone. So it makes sense to me that you keep whining.
Click to expand...

This is useless commentary. Answer the questions! What will the new models offer over this subQ?
 












Anonymous said:
It's very interesting that a rep that doesn't have the technology stays in here bashing it continually. Why? If improved upon successfully and pacing capabilities enhanced this technology will in time dominate the market. Juat basic enhancements to the technology will yield increase usage alone. So it makes sense to me that you keep whining.
Click to expand...

Speaking of pacing through this device. How do you test if post shock pacing actually will pace the heart? If you DFT the pt and post shock pacing doesn't show capture, what do you do?
 






























Think about ATP for a second by going back to basics for a minute.

As you all know, the way to tell if the shock was appropriate is to simply ask the patient, "Did you feel the shock?". If they answered 'yes' then correct device settings. Appropriate shocks should not be felt.

Now back to ATP.
ATP only shocks VT or VF. Patients can't feel appropriate shocks or ATP.

So, the reason no ATP in the S-ICD, is because the scientific advisory panels asked the industry to remove ATP for a variety of reasons.

No go forth, be bold, and program your ICDs appropriately so the patients won't feel shocks.
Once done, influence your design groups to make the device similar by removing ATP. When a device is reduced to its simplest form it is more reliable and safe.
 






Anonymous said:
Think about ATP for a second by going back to basics for a minute.

As you all know, the way to tell if the shock was appropriate is to simply ask the patient, "Did you feel the shock?". If they answered 'yes' then correct device settings. Appropriate shocks should not be felt.

Now back to ATP.
ATP only shocks VT or VF. Patients can't feel appropriate shocks or ATP.

So, the reason no ATP in the S-ICD, is because the scientific advisory panels asked the industry to remove ATP for a variety of reasons.

No go forth, be bold, and program your ICDs appropriately so the patients won't feel shocks.
Once done, influence your design groups to make the device similar by removing ATP. When a device is reduced to its simplest form it is more reliable and safe.
Click to expand...

Moron; The reason there's no ATP is because there's no lead in the RV. Dumb fuck
 






Anonymous said:
Think about ATP for a second by going back to basics for a minute.

As you all know, the way to tell if the shock was appropriate is to simply ask the patient, "Did you feel the shock?". If they answered 'yes' then correct device settings. Appropriate shocks should not be felt.

Now back to ATP.
ATP only shocks VT or VF. Patients can't feel appropriate shocks or ATP.

So, the reason no ATP in the S-ICD, is because the scientific advisory panels asked the industry to remove ATP for a variety of reasons.

No go forth, be bold, and program your ICDs appropriately so the patients won't feel shocks.
Once done, influence your design groups to make the device similar by removing ATP. When a device is reduced to its simplest form it is more reliable and safe.
Click to expand...

The previous poster was to kind to you. You need a new career. ATP "shocks" VT/VF...really??? How does ATP measure VF intervals to disrupt by pacing not shocking you idiot?

Since when is treating a slow VT with a shock before it develops into VF an event a pt shouldn't remember? Since the subQ takes 15 seconds to charge of course the pt will be on their face and not remember. MDT devices deliver Rx in less than 9 seconds and though the pt may not feel the full force of the RX as they become syncopal, it avoids broken faces and trauma to the witnesses.

If your measure of successful device programing is proven by the pt collapsing then you are 100% in the wrong business. So, is it a successful threshold test when the pt hits the deck?
 
























Top Bottom
Back
Quote