Over the past two decades, one could witness the advent and significant expansion of the neurointerventional armamentarium targeting management of acute stroke. In mid-1990s, endovascular coiling embolization tools and techniques for treatment of cerebral aneurysms and AVMs (arterio-venous malformations) were introduced as a less invasive alternative to craniotomy-based surgery in primary prevention of hemorrhagic stroke. Several years later, these techniques were supplemented with coil-containing stents, which enabled treatment of large, giant, and wide-neck aneurysms. The latter was followed by the launch of stent-based flow diversion systems, which allowed clinicians to hemoisolate such aneurysms without tedious and risky coil packing of the rupture-prone aneurysmal sac.
In primary ischemic stroke prevention, development of embolically-protected carotid stenting and left atrial appendage closure techniques provided clinicians with an option of using non-inferior transcatheter tools instead of customary surgical interventions.
Finally, a recent launch of the novel stent-based cerebral thrombectomy systems manifested a qualitative breakthrough in emergent treatment of acute cerebral ischemia, where marginally effective and severely caseloads restrictive intravenous tPA therapy represented the only available therapeutic option.
Presently, endovascular techniques are increasingly seen and used by practicing clinicians as preferred therapeutic modalities in prophylaxis and treatment of acute stroke and are likely to expand their role in the years to come.
Based on the industry reporting and other estimates, in 2014, approximately 227.3 thousand cerebral endovascular therapeutic procedures were performed worldwide. Prophylaxis of ischemic stroke via carotid artery stenting and left atrial appendage (LAA) closure with contributed 91.2 thousand and 11.9 thousand interventions (or 40.1% and 5.2%, accordingly), followed by transcatheter embolization of intracranial aneurysm and AVM for hemorrhagic stroke prevention with 90.5 thousand interventions (or 39.8%), and cerebral thrombectomy-based emergent treatment of acute cerebral ischemia with 33.7 procedures (or 14.8% of the total).
Geographically, Western Europe and the U.S. accounted for the largest shares of corresponding cerebrovascular interventions in 2014, with 35.7% and 35.0%, accordingly, followed by major APAC states with 19% and rest-of-the-world with the remaining 10.3% of the total procedures performed.
From, “Global Market For Medical Device Technologies in Spine Surgery, 2014-2021”, Report #M540.
Spine surgery remains a uniquely American pastime, based at least on sales of technologies including spinal fusion, minimally invasive spine surgical technologies, and orthobiologics used for spine.
The patient demand and associated utilization rates, prices, reimbursement and other drivers make the U.S. an even bigger than it is in most medtech markets. And globally, as well as in the U.S., thoracolumbar fusion drives the most sales.
From, “Global Market For Medical Device Technologies in Spine Surgery, 2014-2021”, Report #M540.
The content of this post is drawn from the complete Report #S251, “Worldwide Wound Management, Forecast to 2024: Established and Emerging Products, Technologies and Markets in the Americas, Europe, Asia/Pacific and Rest of World”. For separate coverage of sealants, glues, and hemostats in wound management, see Report #S290.
The World Market for Wound Management Report encompasses twelve product segments:
Traditional Adhesive Dressings
Traditional Gauze Dressings
Traditional Non-Adherent Dressings
Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Devices
Bioengineered Skin & Skin Substitutes
Wound Care Growth Factors
The report examines North and South America, the European Union, Asia/Pacific and Rest of World, and looks at markets and growth rates by product and country for the years 2014-2024. The world market in 2024 for the total wound management market represented by the segments listed above is projected to be worth over $22 billion, with segments growing at widely variable rates, with lowest sales growth in traditional adhesive bandages and the highest sales growth in bioengineered skin and skin substitutes
Below are representative examples of each type of wound management product.
Hydrofilm, Release, Tegaderm, Bioclusive
Comes as adhesive, thin transparent polyurethane film, and as a dressing with a low adherent pad attached to the film.
Clean, dry wounds, minimal exudate; also used to cover and secure underlying absorptive dressing, and on hard-to-bandage locations, such as heel.
PermaFoam PolyMem Biatain
Polyurethane foam dressing available in sheets or in cavity filling shapes. Some foam dressing have a semipermeable, waterproof layer as the outer layer of the dressing
Facilitates a moist wound environment for healing. Used to clean granulating wounds which have minimal exudate.
Hydrosorb Gel Sheet, Purilon, Aquasorb, DuoDerm, Intrasite Gel, Granugel
Colloids which consist of polymers that expand in water. Available in gels, sheets, hydrogel-impregnated dressings.
Provides moist wound environment for cell migration, reduces pain, helps to rehydrate eschar. Used on dry, sloughy or necrotic wounds.
CombiDERM, Hydrocoll, Comfeel, DuoDerm CGF Extra Thin, Granuflex, Tegasorb, Nu-Derm
Made of hydroactive or hydrophilic particles attached to a hydrophobic polymer. The hydrophilic particles absorb moisture from the wound, convert it to a gel at the interface with the wound. Conforms to wound surface; waterproof and bacteria proof.
Gel formation at wound interface provides moist wound environment. Dry necrotic wounds, or for wounds with minimal exudate. Also used for granulating wounds.
A natural polysaccharide derived from seaweed; available in a range of sizes, as well as in ribbons and ropes.
Because highly absorbent, used for wounds with copious exudate. Can be used in rope form for packing exudative wound cavities or sinus tracts.
Biatain Ag Atrauman Ag MediHoney
Both silver and honey are used as antimicrobial elements in dressings.
Silver: Requires wound to be moderately exudative to activate the silver, in order to be effective
SNa V.A.C. Ulta PICO Renasys (not in USA) Prospera PRO series Invia Liberty
Computerized vacuum device applies continuous or intermittent negative or sub-atmospheric pressure to the wound surface. NPWT accelerates wound healing, reduces time to wound closure. Comes in both stationary and portable versions.
May be used for traumatic acute wound, open amputations, open abdomen, etc. Seems to increase burn wound perfusion. Also used in management of DFUs. Contraindicated for arterial insufficiency ulcers. Not to be used if necrotic tissue is present in over 30% of the wound.
There are some market restraints at work, primarily the high cost of the new technologies. Not all country healthcare budgets can afford advanced wound care products, even if they are proven to decrease healing times and hospital costs over the longer run. The development of substitute products threatens existing product categories, while a lack of sufficient clinical and economic evidence backing new technology hinders growth and acceptance of some of the more advanced wound management technologies.
In addition, improved wound prevention and a lack of regulation on tissue engineering in the EU are also expected to hold back the development of new technologies. In addition to market restraints, there are a number of drivers that are expected to shape this market in the years to come. One of the primary drivers is the aging of the global population. Chronic diseases, such as circulatory conditions, anemias and autoimmune diseases influence the healing process as a result of their influence on a number of bodily functions. Illnesses that cause the most significant problems include diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), arteriosclerosis, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), heart disease, and any conditions leading to hypotension, hypovolemia, edema, and anemia. While chronic diseases are more frequent in the elderly, wound healing will be delayed in any patient with underlying illness. Happily, most wounds heal without any problems. However, chronic wounds may take months or years to fully close, or may never close. Chronic wounds adversely affect the individual’s quality of life, and are a leading cause of burgeoning healthcare costs. Type 2 diabetes represents 85-95% of all diabetes in developed countries, and accounts for an even higher percentage in developing countries. There were 26 million diabetic patients in the US in 2012 and 285 million patients globally. Of these patients, approximately 15% will develop a diabetic foot ulcer and 50% of these will become infected, representing an estimated 2 million patients. Diabetic foot infections are currently treated with systemic antibiotics, but the estimated failure rate of antibiotics for diabetic foot ulcers is in excess of 22%. A patient with diabetes is at significant risk of damage to tissues caused by impaired homeostasis due to the disease process. For example there is a tendency for such tissues to develop blockages in smaller blood vessels, which reduces the ability of these vessels to provide sufficient oxygen to tissues already under stress due to compromised nutrient supply and the diabetic condition. These patients then develop arterial ulcers. They may also have a tendency to suffer from venous ulcers, due to the underlying poor condition of cells as a result of the diabetes. The diabetic foot is the most common cause of non-traumatic lower extremity amputations in the US and Europe: there is an average of 82,000 amputations per year in the U.S., costing an estimated $1.6 billion annually. The estimated cost of foot ulcer care in the U.S. ranges from $4,595 per ulcer episode to more than $28,000 and the total annual cost of foot ulcer care in the US has been estimated to be as high as $5 billion.
Pressure, or decubitus, ulcers are another of the most common types of chronic wounds. The treatment of pressure ulcers places a major burden on healthcare systems worldwide, with an emerging additional cost of litigation increasing in importance over recent years. Healthcare practitioners need to be aware of both the direct and indirect costs and consider how the implementation of prevention protocols may offer cost savings in the longer term. The cost of a dressing for example as a prevention tool is minimal in comparison to the costs of treating an established pressure ulcer. Following are a few hard numbers on the true financial cost of pressure ulceration:
The estimated cost to the US hospital sector is $11 billion per annum
The estimated cost to the UK national health service is estimated at £1.4-£2.1 billion annually (4% of total NHS expenditure)
Lawsuits remain common in both acute and long term care — with high payments in certain cases
The average cost to treat an individual with an unstageable ulcer or a deep tissue injury is estimated to be $43,180
The average length of stay in hospital is almost three times longer for chronic wounds
The mean hospital cost for management of pressure ulcers in the U.S. is $14,426. In comparison, the same cost in Korea is identified as $3,000-$7,000.
The cost of treating chronic wounds is one element driving the development and utilization of advanced wound care technologies. Other drivers are the aging of the population, and the obesity epidemic, which is expected to produce a wave of diabetics in the years to come.
Whether sales growth arises by a preferred adoption of one technology over another or by better than average economic conditions — or both, sales of wound management products are driven by technology adoption rates that vary by country, clinical practice patterns, reimbursement and other variables.
We assessed current and forecast sales for the following products:
Trad’l Adhesive Dressings
Negative Pressure Wound Therapy
Bioengineered Skin & Skin Substitutes
For all product segments but the traditional adhesive, gauze, and non-adherent wound care products (which were assessed only at the global level), we assessed growth in each of the following countries/regions: Americas (USA, Rest of North America, Latin America), Europe (United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Rest of Europe), Asia/Pacific (Japan, Korea, Rest of Asia/Pacific), and Rest of World.
From our examination (report #S251) of the global market for wound management products, below are the top product-country cohorts in terms of projected compounded sales growth from 2015 to 2024.
There are literally many hundreds—perhaps thousands—of companies in wound care, ranging from tiny companies operating with a couple of employees in a developing country, to large-cap market leaders with thousands of employees located in offices around the world.
The following exhibit shows that a handful of companies account for a large part of the global advanced wound care market. Acelity LP, Inc., which is a merger of Kinetic Concepts, Inc. (KCI), Systagenix, Inc. and LifeCell, is now one of the leaders in this market, and accounts for about 20% of wound care revenues. Acelity is followed by Smith & Nephew plc, which is followed by several other companies with 13% or less of the market. The hundreds of other companies fall into the 20% of “Other”. In summary, about seven companies account for approximately 80% of the advanced wound care market worldwide.
Bioengineered skin, skin substitutes, foam dressings, hydrocolloids, and growth factors are among top growth segments in a global market for advanced wound management that is otherwise modest in growth, but high in volume.
The 2016 global wound management market will hit nearly $15 billion. With sales growing at just better than 5% annually on population growth, migration of technologies to developing markets, and increased per capita utilization, the aggregate market is stably tied to persistent caseload. This regular, high volume of wound product sales supports a steady stream of innovation intended to gain even the smallest edge in share, an advantage that gains its value in real terms from the multiple of such a large global caseload.
In a market in which autografts and allografts have long been common, the development of cost-effective and safe bioengineered skin and skin substitutes is finding ready adoption in wounds of all types, but particularly burn wounds.
Due to their small base of existing sales thus far, even incremental expansion of sales in the use of biological growth factors in wound management reflects high growth through the forecast period.
Biotech need not be behind the higher growth in wound management technologies. Excellent growth prospects are also seen in foams, hydrogels, hydrocolloids, and other dressing materials.
Physical systems, including negative pressure wound devices, are not demonstrating growth prospects as good as traditional wound dressing products, let alone advanced wound products.
In short, the large global market is stable and growing at best modestly, but within this market, advanced wound management technologies’ sales are accelerating at the expense of traditional wound products. Growth in wound management is clearly coming from within.