Nuvectra?

Quote












anonymous said:
Those two were the only ones manufactured in the way that caused them to slip. The company has put quality controls in place to mitigate this process from happening again. Management stressed that there are no leads in any current patients that could potentially have this problem.

Yeah the revenue is low but that is mainly due to getting through the red tape that is hospital purchasing departments and setting up accounts with the new company. Also, Nuvectra isn't pretending to oust Nevro's HF-10, nor are they pretending to steal giant market share. But they will grab their fair share since they do have slightly better value propositions than Boston Sci and Medtronic.

Further, they are using their platform to get into SNS, which is a $500 mil market (and growing) monopolized by one single inferior product. Nuvectra's platform will smash that market in 2018-2019.
Click to expand...


I agree, proportion of share, etc remains to be seen. One thing I do know is Medtronic interstim, and DBS REPS are used to no competion and have treated customers like shit. Thal ol MdT cockiness will bite them in the ass the way it always has! They have forgotten how to sell and cant wait to see their ill ways bite them where it hurts most.
 










































So I keep hearing Nuvectra has the smallest , most energy efficient battery requiring least charging. Also, most easy to maneuver leads with best patient experience (smoother more comfortable energy flow/ waveform) 12 channels vs 8 offering better coverage/ pain relief, most power sources and easiest guide wire to steer for Drs. and most discreet patient charger with best programming options. Sounds pretty darn good !!
Naysayers/?
 






anonymous said:
So I keep hearing Nuvectra has the smallest , most energy efficient battery requiring least charging.
Click to expand...
Would love to see some substantiation for that. I haven't seen any data about whose battery charges the most efficiently or whose is most energy efficient or if there's a practical difference. I can tell you thought that patients get pissed when their charging paddles break. It is a good thing NVTR has deep discharge recovery. That is a nice and unfortunately necessary feature for devices that have to be recharged at least weekly. Bottom line is that the battery just needs to work and last a reasonable time.
  • Batteries probably made by ITGR
    • NVRO requires the most charging (daily) but it is not the same class of device. NVRO is made somewhere in South America by ITGR, and they probably provide the batteries also. Might not though since ITGR bought that company that makes NVRO's stimulator rather than developing it themselves.
    • ITGR also probably makes NVTRs batteries since they manufacture the rest of the device.
  • Companies that roll their own.
    • BSX batteries are made in Minnesota in the same manufacturing plant that makes their batteries for implantable pacemakers and defibrillators.
    • STJ makes batteries at their Liberty South Carolina plant but not sure if they make the SCS batteries there. Let's hope they don't come from the same place that made their pacemaker batteries that suffered from dendrite growth. Those came from an external company - probably ITGR.
    • MDT probably makes their own in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.
Advantage: BSX and maybe STJ/MDT as they control their own destiny.


anonymous said:
Also, most easy to maneuver leads
Click to expand...
From my experience, this is not true. The stylet can get stuck before the electrode. This is annoying. The paddle lead has an articulating hinge. That does help for maneuverability if you are a surgeon that uses those. NVTR has stretchy leads. This has some benefits but their leads have other known issues.

anonymous said:
best patient experience (smoother more comfortable energy flow/ waveform)
Click to expand...

Their CEO does talk about the fidelity and cleanliness of their waveform. I have not seen a whitepaper or poster, much less a peer-reviewed publication supporting that that is true or that, if true, it actually contributes to meaningful patient experience. He is also found about talking about their 85% trial success rate. He is comparing that to the lower success rate he had while working at ANS. The wheel keeps turning, and the world has moved on. A 65% success rate is not the norm.


anonymous said:
12 channels vs 8 offering better coverage/ pain relief, most power sources
Click to expand...

Nuvectra put together a quick comparison chart on their website in the investor relations section of their website. It is slide 10 of the March investor presentation. Very nice snapshot. Look it up.
  • The number of channels ranges from 16 (MDT/STJ) to 32 (BSX). NVTR is in the middle with 24 (either 3 leads of 8 poles or 2 leads of 12 poles). BSX has 36 independent channels. NVTR has 24 independent channels. The others have fewer channels and they aren't independent. Keep in mind that all of the systems have a practical limit to the number of electrodes that can fire simultaneously because there's a limit to how much total amperage can be delivered at the same time. Advantage BSX.
  • NVTR has the highest max amplitude at 30mA. MDT is worst at 10.5 mA. Advantage NVTR.
  • MDT/STJ is constant voltage. BSX/NVTR are constant current. Constant current is better as tissue impedance changes over time. MDT's next gen will have the option of constant current or constant voltage. I have not tried NVRO. I do not know if it is constant voltage or current. Advantage BSX/NVTR.
  • With high frequency you get paresthesia free which is preferable for most patients as they feel nothing as opposed to numb/tingling. MDT/BSX/STJ cap themselves at 1200 Hz. This is probably to avoid getting sued by NVRO who has a patent above 1200 Hz. NVTR has chosen to go up to 2000 MHz. If they were a significant threat, they would probably be sued. Advantage NVRO by a wide margin but again not the same type of device. Within the category, advantage NVTR.
  • NVTR has the widest range of pulse width. 20-1500 microseconds. BSX/NVRO are 20-1000 micro seconds. Advantage NVTR.
  • The 12 polar extended lead does let you stimulate three dermatomes with the same lead. That is nice. It especially helps my shittier colleagues that can't properly deliver their leads. Advantage NVTR.
  • Stimulator volume is comparable except for NVRO. The others run between 18 cc (STJ) and 22 cc (BSX). NVRO is the only "loser" here, but it's not even really targeted at the same patient population. Otherwise it is a draw between all of the others.

Who is advancing clinical science and has the data to back up their device? MDT has the longest history but has regulatory problems that are distracting them. RestoreSensor? Yawn. For STJ, Sunburst was a disaster. NVRO is a different type of device. Some exciting things there but still a niche product. NVTR has little published clinical data. BSX just quietly chugs along. If you're looking to sell multiple therapy types to different types of physicians, NVTR is one of the few companies you could do that. NVTR is working on other indications. They have SCS and have submitted a system for sacral nerve stimulation. This is suppose come out later this year. They also are working on DBS but that is a partnership. According to their complaints in the MAUDE database, it looks like they might be working on occipital nerve stimulation quietly. Interesting that they would not have sanitized “ONS” out of the MAUDE report. They don't seem to have a clinical trial for it. Maybe it is just off label.
 






anonymous said:
Would love to see some substantiation for that. I haven't seen any data about whose battery charges the most efficiently or whose is most energy efficient or if there's a practical difference. I can tell you thought that patients get pissed when their charging paddles break. It is a good thing NVTR has deep discharge recovery. That is a nice and unfortunately necessary feature for devices that have to be recharged at least weekly. Bottom line is that the battery just needs to work and last a reasonable time.
  • Batteries probably made by ITGR
    • NVRO requires the most charging (daily) but it is not the same class of device. NVRO is made somewhere in South America by ITGR, and they probably provide the batteries also. Might not though since ITGR bought that company that makes NVRO's stimulator rather than developing it themselves.
    • ITGR also probably makes NVTRs batteries since they manufacture the rest of the device.
  • Companies that roll their own.
    • BSX batteries are made in Minnesota in the same manufacturing plant that makes their batteries for implantable pacemakers and defibrillators.
    • STJ makes batteries at their Liberty South Carolina plant but not sure if they make the SCS batteries there. Let's hope they don't come from the same place that made their pacemaker batteries that suffered from dendrite growth. Those came from an external company - probably ITGR.
    • MDT probably makes their own in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.
Advantage: BSX and maybe STJ/MDT as they control their own destiny.



From my experience, this is not true. The stylet can get stuck before the electrode. This is annoying. The paddle lead has an articulating hinge. That does help for maneuverability if you are a surgeon that uses those. NVTR has stretchy leads. This has some benefits but their leads have other known issues.



Their CEO does talk about the fidelity and cleanliness of their waveform. I have not seen a whitepaper or poster, much less a peer-reviewed publication supporting that that is true or that, if true, it actually contributes to meaningful patient experience. He is also found about talking about their 85% trial success rate. He is comparing that to the lower success rate he had while working at ANS. The wheel keeps turning, and the world has moved on. A 65% success rate is not the norm.




Nuvectra put together a quick comparison chart on their website in the investor relations section of their website. It is slide 10 of the March investor presentation. Very nice snapshot. Look it up.
  • The number of channels ranges from 16 (MDT/STJ) to 32 (BSX). NVTR is in the middle with 24 (either 3 leads of 8 poles or 2 leads of 12 poles). BSX has 36 independent channels. NVTR has 24 independent channels. The others have fewer channels and they aren't independent. Keep in mind that all of the systems have a practical limit to the number of electrodes that can fire simultaneously because there's a limit to how much total amperage can be delivered at the same time. Advantage BSX.
  • NVTR has the highest max amplitude at 30mA. MDT is worst at 10.5 mA. Advantage NVTR.
  • MDT/STJ is constant voltage. BSX/NVTR are constant current. Constant current is better as tissue impedance changes over time. MDT's next gen will have the option of constant current or constant voltage. I have not tried NVRO. I do not know if it is constant voltage or current. Advantage BSX/NVTR.
  • With high frequency you get paresthesia free which is preferable for most patients as they feel nothing as opposed to numb/tingling. MDT/BSX/STJ cap themselves at 1200 Hz. This is probably to avoid getting sued by NVRO who has a patent above 1200 Hz. NVTR has chosen to go up to 2000 MHz. If they were a significant threat, they would probably be sued. Advantage NVRO by a wide margin but again not the same type of device. Within the category, advantage NVTR.
  • NVTR has the widest range of pulse width. 20-1500 microseconds. BSX/NVRO are 20-1000 micro seconds. Advantage NVTR.
  • The 12 polar extended lead does let you stimulate three dermatomes with the same lead. That is nice. It especially helps my shittier colleagues that can't properly deliver their leads. Advantage NVTR.
  • Stimulator volume is comparable except for NVRO. The others run between 18 cc (STJ) and 22 cc (BSX). NVRO is the only "loser" here, but it's not even really targeted at the same patient population. Otherwise it is a draw between all of the others.

Who is advancing clinical science and has the data to back up their device? MDT has the longest history but has regulatory problems that are distracting them. RestoreSensor? Yawn. For STJ, Sunburst was a disaster. NVRO is a different type of device. Some exciting things there but still a niche product. NVTR has little published clinical data. BSX just quietly chugs along. If you're looking to sell multiple therapy types to different types of physicians, NVTR is one of the few companies you could do that. NVTR is working on other indications. They have SCS and have submitted a system for sacral nerve stimulation. This is suppose come out later this year. They also are working on DBS but that is a partnership. According to their complaints in the MAUDE database, it looks like they might be working on occipital nerve stimulation quietly. Interesting that they would not have sanitized “ONS” out of the MAUDE report. They don't seem to have a clinical trial for it. Maybe it is just off label.
Click to expand...

You must have a lot of free time.
 












anonymous said:
    • STJ makes batteries at their Liberty South Carolina plant but not sure if they make the SCS batteries there. Let's hope they don't come from the same place that made their pacemaker batteries that suffered from dendrite growth. Those came from an external company - probably ITGR.
  • MDT/STJ is constant voltage. BSX/NVTR are constant current. Constant current is better as tissue impedance changes over time. MDT's next gen will have the option of constant current or constant voltage. I have not tried NVRO. I do not know if it is constant voltage or current. Advantage BSX/NVTR.
Click to expand...
All STJ batteries in SCS devices come from external suppliers.

All STJ SCS devices are constant current.
 










































Top Bottom
Back
Quote