Fundings in Medtech 2009-2014: A Contrarian View

Since 2008, medtech has taken a lot of hits. Indeed, when the capital crunch hit, medtech was not viewed as the safest place for investment by a suddenly very risk averse world. Blue chip stock, high volume, low growth, STABLE markets became the norm for a lot of money. But, after a short while, it became apparent that medtech was hardly junk bonds or penny stock, especially considering the battle-hardened innovators of medtech who continued to seize on innovations that provided treatment where there once wasn’t, that accelerated healing, that measurably improved outcomes, that resulted in real cost savings to health systems and insurers, that, in other words, met DEMAND.

So, money came back to medtech. I tracked it then, and I track it now, month by month, funding by funding, company by company. Was it coming back in the pollyanna-esque windfalls of biotech and pharma? No, and I don’t think it ever has or ever will — nor should it. Biotech seems to perennially able to tap the “hope springs eternal” deep pockets of venture capital that can regularly draw individual fundings of $50 million, $75 million or $100 million. Pharmaceuticals don’t seem to go to the VC well as often, but when they do, their funding rounds are no less spectacular.

Medtech excels at crafting plain and simple solutions to disease, suffering, high healthcare costs and clinical need. Not every solution is a blockbuster — in fact, there are more than a few 510(k) products that should probably just be called “me, too”, since they do not distinguish themselves independently, at least not from a clinical or technology standpoint. But medtech has proven its ability to keep pushing the treatment envelope by innovating a little further to gain a bit more edge on outcome or cost or both.

So, medtech regularly pulls in $5 million, $10 million, $25 million at at time — frequently less, but not infrequently more.

My Contrarian View. But let me highlight again that medtech is a moving target and not everyone is thinking apples to your oranges.  What I consider medtech is, at its root, technologies that were traditionally represented as medical device treatments for disease and trauma. (And, yes, so I don’t have to answer this later on, by “medical device” I mean implants, instruments, instrumentation, even capital equipment.)  But medtech is not only medical device, for it is also (at least by my authoritarian definition, since this is my blog, but it is read by many in this field), anything and everything (within reason) that is either adjunctive to medical devices like drug delivery, like biomaterial-based implants/grafts, drug/device hybrids, tissue engineering and cell therapy (this latter is perhaps at the fringe of medtech, bordering on pure biotech).

Where’s the boundary of medtech? In my mind, it is anything and everything that competes with markets that have in the past and are to some extent still served by medical devices, equipment and supplies. For the sake of repetition, this is the definition I have posted on the medtech fundings I report on month by month in this blog (and in the online spreadsheets linked here):

What is “medtech”?: We view medical technology (medtech) as principally medical devices and equipment, but also all technologies that are directly competitive with or complementary to technologies represented by therapeutic or diagnostic medical devices/equipment.

Note: Historic coverage of “medtech” has been limited to medical devices, supplies and equipment. We feel that such a limited definition poorly reflects the true nature of the markets that once were limited to such products. In reality, assessing the markets and competition for medical devices by ONLY considering other medical devices would result in gross underestimations of both competition and market potential. Moreover, this is reflected in both the nature of medical devices (which may be hybrid device/bio/pharm products or products that may not be “devices” at all (especially in the typical definitions defined by material type and function) but that compete head-on with devices.

So, on this more liberal definition of medtech (which some still feel is too restrictive), I can point to a steady stream of investments that has been on an upward trend for the last five years. If you disagree, feel free to come up with your own definition(s), but here is the five year trend of medtech investment:

Screen Shot 2014-04-01 at 2.49.04 PM

 

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC

Looked at from a seasonal standpoint, this data is shown below:

Screen Shot 2014-04-01 at 2.50.09 PM

 

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC

The monthly data underlying both of these charts is at link. If that is not enough data for you, then you can look at a comprehensive listing of the individual fundings behind this at link.

New Technologies at Medtech Startups, March 2014

Below is the list of new medical technologies under development at startups recently identified and included this month in the Medtech Startups Database:

  • Cardiac assist device for patients otherwise needing transplant.
  • Custom surgical implants including using 3D printing.
  • Targeted, localized drug delivery.
  • Hemostatic dressing for non-compressible hemorrhage.
  • High resolution imaging in cancer
  • Image-guided surgery
  • Autologous cell therapy delivered at the intraoperative point of care.
  • Device to harvest bone grafts
  • Device and method for self-collection of samples to screen for HPV, chlamydia, and gonorrhea.
  • Implantable neuromodulation device for the treatment of chronic pain and overactive bladder.
  • Encapsulated pancreatic cells for treatment of type 1 diabetes.
  • Embolization device.
  • Deep brain stimulation for Alzheimer’s and other cognitive disorders.
  • Magnetoencephalography (MEG) and magnetocardiography (MCG).
  • Technologies to manage core temperature in critical care and post-surgical patients
  • New method to use pulse wave velocity to measure arterial stiffness as indicator of heart attack risk.
  • Minimally invasive hip implants and other orthopedic implants.
  • Orthopaedic implants.

For a historical listing of the technologies under development at medtech startups, see link.

Wound Market Analysis, A Case Study in Understanding the Context for Opportunity

See pending report #S251, “Worldwide Wound Management, Forecast to 2024”, Report #S251.

Analysis is a funny thing. If done thoroughly, accurately and carefully to represent a subject from all relevant angles, it can reveal very important considerations by those with a vested interest (e.g., in support of expensive investment).

Analysis is often driven by assumption. (“It seems to me that the relative significances of different wound management products vary from one country to another, or one region to another.”) So, analysts go looking for data that would support or reject that assumption. Here, one would be interested in the relative values of different wound product sales in different countries.

Ah, we have that data. Let’s plot the sales, as a percent of each region’s total, for the different categories of wound management products in the Americas, European Union, Asia/Pacific and Rest of World:

Screen Shot 2014-03-26 at 1.57.46 PM

 Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report #S249.

What striking results, the analyst says. Clearly, negative pressure wound therapy is much more common in the Americas than it is in the Rest of World. Other small-to-significant differences are seen in other product areas.

However, the better analyst would challenge the assumption or at least consider its relevance to important decisions (again, e.g., expensive investment).

This relative data was presented because it answered an assumption, that relative use of different wound management products varies by country/region. Of course, this is indeed true.

But that’s not the whole story.  Here, we have engaged ourselves in a careful analysis of deck chairs on top of a magnificent, unsinkable luxury liner.

The bigger picture, the more relevant context into which this analysis must fit is not simply the relative difference, but the absolute difference. If we take this question of wound product sales by geography and consider not the relative but the absolute differences, the picture changes considerably:

Screen Shot 2014-03-26 at 1.59.06 PM

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report #S249.

Which analysis is correct?  Of, course, they both tell the truth, but neither tells the whole truth. One can gain a more comprehensive understanding by considering both and recognizing the significance of actions based on one or the other analysis.

But size and growth are not the only dimensions that factor into the potential interest by manufacturers. There is, of course, the degree to which the market is fragmented — how many competitors are carving up that high volume or high growth niche?  Here are some of the (3^3=9) combinations (of which many are possible):

  • High volume, low growth, fragmented: traditional wound dressings
  • High growth, low volume, unfragmented: growth factors
  • High growth, low volume, fragmented: bioengineered skin and skin substitutes
  • High growth, high volume, unfragmented:  ???

The opportunities available to manufacturers of wound management products clearly derive from each manufacturer’s strengths (technology, market presence, time-to-market, etc.), but the value of those opportunities and whether they should be pursued are factors that are dictated entirely by how each of those strengths match up against others in the market.  The wound management market has a highly diverse makeup of technology types, competitor types, clinical applications, clinical challenges, market forces and, ultimately, different competitive niches for product suppliers.

The increasing problem of chronic wounds, and their medtech solutions

Wounds have many different sources, etiologies and forms and, therefore, demand a range of approaches. By virtue of these differences, they have considerably different costs. At the top of the list of wound culprits driving up cost is the category of chronic wounds. Simply put, these wounds are very slow to heal due to poor circulation at the site (e.g., decubitus stasis, or pressure, ulcers), concomitant health issues (diabetes) and the difficulty in changing the local environment toward one with conditions more conducive to the healing process.

Chronic wounds are not the most common — that is a category represented by surgical wounds, in which the wound has been created medically or surgically in order to excise or otherwise manage diseased tissue. But surgical wounds, traumatic wounds and lacerations are by their nature acute and, especially for surgical wounds, can be surgically managed to create clean wound edges, good vascularization and other conditions that accelerate healing. Therefore, while the volume of surgical and traumatic wounds and lacerations is significant, their costs are manageable and their growth is unremarkable.

But the costs of chronic wounds are higher due to both the types of different products required and the length of time required for those products to be used. Moreover, given the association of chronic wounds with conditions that are growing in prevalence due to increasing incidence of obesity, diabetes and other conditions, combined with an aging population that is increasingly sedentary, the prevalence of chronic wounds is shifting the balance among wound types. Below is the balance of wound types by prevalence worldwide in 2011, followed by the projected balance of wound types in 2025.

Worldwide Share of Wound Prevalence By Type, 2011

Screen Shot 2014-03-25 at 9.13.44 AM

 

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report #S190 and Report #S249.

 

Worldwide Share of Wound Prevalence By Type, 2025

Screen Shot 2014-03-25 at 9.14.16 AM

 

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report #S190 and Report #S249.

Surgical wounds offer the potential for use of devices which can ensure hemostasis, prevent internal adhesions and anastomoses, secure soft tissue, and close the skin. Traumatic wounds also offer potential for skin closure products and for hemostats, and adhesion prevention during post-trauma surgery. New wound-covering sealant products may also offer potential for treatment of cuts, grazes, and burns.

Chronic wounds are generally not amenable to treatment by adhesives, sealants and hemostats unless the wound has either been debrided to a sterile bleeding surface (in which case it becomes like a surgical wound), or the product offers some stimulant activity. Many hemostats exhibit some inflammatory and cytokinetic activity, which has been associated with accelerated healing. However, this inflammatory activity has also been known to burn the patient’s skin. Chronic wounds are instead dealt with often by a combination of debridement, frequent dressing changes, products to address local vascular circulation and pressure (negative and positive) and others. Progress is being made in reducing the associated healing times, but a large opportunity remains.

Clinical and Technology Focus of New Medtech Startups

Since January 2011, a total of 245 new medtech companies have been founded and added to the Medtech Startups Database from MedMarket Diligence. These are companies that are either device-based or based on other technologies that are directly competitive with, or complementary to, medical devices, inclusive of medical device implants, med/surg instruments or equipment, drug/device or biotech/device hybrids, bioresorable implants/devices and other similar technologies. The companies excluded from this are those that are developign pure pharmaceutical products with no direct competitive/complementary role with medical devices or hybrids of info technology (e.g., smart-phone) piggybacked on existing medical devices.

The companies represented here cover a surprising range of innovations and clinical applications. They have been identified based on recently issued patents, patent applications, corporate filings and a litany of press releases, social media sources, and other data sources. As we identify the companies during this process, we categorize them into a number of clinical/technology categories, with multiple categories possible (e.g., minimally invasive plus cardio therapeutics, or diagnostic plus oncology, and others). Below is illustrated, in descending order, the clinical/technology categories of the companies founded since January 2011:

Screen Shot 2014-03-22 at 1.08.50 PM

Source: Medtech Startups Database; MedMarket Diligence, LLC

[Note, please, that we have little focus on pharmaceutical or drug discovery or dental/oral surgery, so these terms low tally in the graphic reflects our lower focus than prevalence of startups in these areas.]

Clearly, the great majority of medical technology startup companies is focused on surgical and/or cardio therapeutics and/or minimally invasive and/or ortho/musculoskeletal applications, areas that have historically and persistently represented the dominant thrust of medtech innovation.

Another way to view these companies is a “word cloud” compiled from each company’s product/technology descriptions, with the most frequently occurring words in the descriptions being represented in larger type face in the graphic. Admittedly, this is little more than a curiosity, but in reflecting the words used to reflect the focus of these companies (whether the words are theirs, mine or a third party source), it lends a sense to the common/primary thinking is in conveying what these companies are about:
Screen Shot 2014-03-22 at 12.53.46 PM

Source: Medtech Startups Database; MedMarket Diligence, LLC

 

Aesthetic and Reconstructive Products Accelerating to Double Digit Growth Worldwide

Global medical aesthetic and reconstructive products, which include medical/surgical implants, materials, injectable products, energy-based devices (e.g., laser, RF), “cosmeceuticals” and other products used in aesthetic and/or reconstructive procedures, achieved sales of more than $6.5 billion in 2013. By 2018, the worldwide market for aesthetic/reconstructive products will reach $10.7 billion. The U.S. and the Latin America markets will have a CAGR close to 10%. The U.S. and Latin America will experience growth, respectively, of 9.2% and 10% in line with global trends. Of course, the global trend is largely represented by the U.S. market, which holds 45% of the total. Europe has been witnessing relatively a slower growth of 6.6% per year. Declining purchasing power, particularly in southern Europe affects the European market and this geographical segment is estimated at $1.84 billion in 2013 to reach $1.94 billion in 2018.

The Asia/Pacific region will have an overall CAGR of more than 14.1% driven by increasing demand and, accordingly, by the expanded access to technologies and products in China and by the continued high growth in the strong economies of Japan and South Korea. Overall, Asia will experience the strongest growth in aesthetic/reconstructive product sales, eventually eclipsing the total for the European market in 2018, reaching $2.24 billion. Globally, the growth of the market from 2013 and 2018 be a 10%+ compound annual growth rate.

Global Segmentation of All Surgical and Non-Surgical
Aesthetic/Reconstructive Procedures, 2013

Screen Shot 2014-03-17 at 12.55.55 PM

 

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report #S710, “Global Markets for Products and Technologies in Aesthetic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2013-2018”.

 

Top Locations for New Medtech Companies

Medical technology thrives in geographic locations where economics, access to intellectual property, tax incentives and other synergies and infrastructure support it. Reflecting this is the locations where entrepreneurs decide to locate their medical technology startups. As an exercise, we compressed roughly 10+ years of data collected for our Medtech Startups Database to reveal the geographic locations in which there was the most concentration.

From a country standpoint, it should not be surprised that, by virtue of its population, economic strength and many other determinants, the United States is the most common country in which medtechs get started. Below is the list of the top countries in our Medtech Startups Database, ranked in descending order by the number of startup companies:

  1. USA
  2. Israel
  3. Switzerland
  4. United Kingdom
  5. France
  6. Germany
  7. Ireland
  8. Canada
  9. Australia
  10. Sweden
  11. Denmark
  12. Finland
  13. India
  14. Belgium
  15. Hungary
  16. Japan
  17. Korea
  18. Netherlands
  19. New Zealand
  20. Singapore

Since the U.S. is the most common country for new medtechs, it follows that the top cities in which all startups would be founded are in the U.S. The exception to this is Israel’s M.P. Misgav, a very concentrated area of investment and development in that country. The rest of the top cities are indeed U.S., with cities in California the most prevalent in the list (in descending order):

  1. Palo Alto, CA
  2. Menlo Park, CA
  3. San Diego, CA
  4. San Francisco, CA
  5. Cleveland, OH
  6. Cambridge, CA
  7. Mountain View, CA
  8. Irvine, CA
  9. New York, NY
  10. Austin, TX
  11. Redwood City, CA
  12. Boulder, CO
  13. Fremont, CA
  14. Minneapolis, MN
  15. Sunnyvale, CA
  16. Houston, TX
  17. Chicago, IL
  18. M.P. Misgav (Israel)
  19. Salt Lake City, UT
  20. Lexington, KY

It is noteworthy that, from our periodic review of startups, the locations that have been progressively moving up the chart are Austin, Boulder and Mountain View, while locations that have seen fewer startups than were newly located there in the past are Minneapolis and Chicago (we will leave it to others to speculate the reasons behind these ups/downs).

Newest Medtech Startups, and I do mean MEDTECH

Since you’re reading this, I am going to assume you have some interest in medical technology, and just to make it bluntly obvious, I’m going to hammer a definition of it so you know exactly what I mean and what I don’t mean. Why I do this will become clear, but simply put, it’s to keep me from going insane.

In the most liberal definition of “medical technology” (which can still be restrictive, as I’ll mention below), I mean “the adaptation of scientific knowledge to the practical application of medicine”.  In your travels, I am certain you have come across uses of the term “medtech” that seem expansively broad, such as those that are simply the application of virtually any kind of technology to medicine.

If you call your doctor, does that make your phone a medtech device? What about surgical gloves, since they’re really just gloves? Ah, but what about surgical gloves coated with a material that prevents formation of post-surgical adhesions? Then, too, what about devices for wireless transmission of BP, pulse, pCO2 and other vital signs — are they just glorified telephones?

The point is that there is a wide range of perspectives that may variously be brought to bear when considering medtech and, since not everyone has the same perspective, it’s important to understand which perspective is in play.

Today, I saw a post about “medtech” companies at this year’s SXSW conference. Intrigued, I read on, only to find that most of these are technologies that have been applied to medical applications (and some not even that), but are for the most part not “medical technologies”:

  • a medication compliance device that chimes when doses are missed
  • a thermometer that connects to your iPhone or Android device
  • a smart diaper that monitors select analytes to potentially reveal UTIs, type 1 diabetes, dehydration, etc.
  • motion sensor-enabled underwear with micro-airbags to reduce injuries from falls in elderly
  • shoes to reduce the risk of plantar fasciitis, complications from diabetic neuropathy, etc.
  • wearable baby monitor to detect ambient temperature, posture and movement
  • mobile device to connect patients with mental health professionals
  • cloud-based service to connect individuals to the health/wellness resources of their employers

(Of course, the bottom line for many is whether the FDA or any other relevant governing body would consider a device a “medical device” or would otherwise conclude that its function, design or application is such that it must be regulated as a medical device, but even under that sort of all encompassing consideration, many of the above technologies would not likely be called “medical devices”. However, it’s not my definition that matters in those cases; it’s the FDA’s.)

I’m not placing a judgment that these devices are somehow inferior — not my point at all.  I have no doubt that there are countless non-medical technologies that can be applied to medical applications to create huge demand and/or solve big problems.  I just have to draw the line somewhere as I seek to describe, characterize and analyze an already large universe of innovations — I’ll leave the analysis of iPhone-enabled or otherwise information technology-centered devices to those who are better suited to the task. (If, in addition to the implants, surgical devices and range of other technologies requiring a physician to actually use, I had to also analyze any of those iPhone-enabled widgets, I would go mad.) My focus is instead on innovations that are intrinsically medical applications of knowledge that have been developed to improve outcomes, tap unmet patient demand, reduce healthcare costs or otherwise improve healthcare delivery. 

Fundamentally, these are technologies that have been developed to reduce symptoms, hasten recovery from disease or trauma (surgically-induced or otherwise), facilitate the removal of malignant tissue, restore normal organ or system function, facilitate the ongoing management of chronic disease, provide differential diagnostic information to facilitate courses of treatment, and many, many similar. By now, you should have a sense of what technology I would consider “medical” and what technology may have a medical application but which is not itself “medical”.

So what? Well, to be very specific, these are the most recent additions of startup companies to our Medtech Startups Database:

Company Product/technology
Medallion Therapeutics, Inc. Targeted, localized drug delivery
PB&B S.A. Use of biomaterials in aesthetics for non-surgical temporary & permanent breast and buttock enhancement, facial rejuvination solutions and adipose tissue engineering related therapies.
TS3 Medical, Inc. Vascular drill to cross chronic total obstructions (CTOs) and facilitate balloon angioplasty and stenting.
SynerZ Medical, Inc. Developing a device that mimics the actions of gastric bypass surgery for the treatment of obesity and Type 2 diabetes.
Biotrace Medical, Inc. Temporary cardiac pacing as treatment for reversible symptomatic bradycardia.
Rbpark, LLC Embolectomy devices
NeuroTek Medical, Inc. Non-invasive, migraine therapy device worn on the back of the head at the onset of or during a migraine to relieve pain.
RegenEye, LLC Ocular stent for treating age-based vision changes.
Reveal Optical, LLC Ophthalmic device company focusing on age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic retinopathy, retinitis pigmentosa, hemianopia, and glaucoma.
Mimedis AG Custom surgical implants including using 3D printing.
Socrates Health Solutions, Inc. Noninvasive blood glucose monitor.
Gecko Biomedical Biodegradable sealants and adhesives in surgery.

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC

Entrepreneurs have for years been relentlessly conceiving and implementing innovations for therapeutics and diagnostics that leverage the advances in materials sciences and the individual and combined gains in understanding the onset, development and intervention to palliate, cure or otherwise eliminate disease.  Developments such as these have had a profound impact on patients’ lives and the costs (of all kinds) in the end result. 

Combine these medtech developments with other non-medtech developments in additional innovative ways and an even bigger impact can be made. 

Sales of Sealants, Hemostasis, Other Closure a Large, Shifting Market Worldwide

Products that provide hemostasis, closure, sealing and anti-adhesion of wounds comprised long established products (e.g., tapes, sutures, etc.) as well as a variety of advanced products such as fibrin and other surgical sealants, surgical glues, hemostats and products to prevent post-surgical adhesion.  While traditional products are being innovated to keep pace with advanced products (for example, through the development of absorbable sutures), the shift of caseload and product sales away from traditional products appears unrelenting.

As a result, the balance of the competitive landscape is forecast to shift over the next few years toward advanced sealing, hemostasis, closure and anti-adhesion products.  Below is illustrated, in a combined “donut” chart, this shift from 2012 to 2017 in the share of the global market for these products.

sealants_donut_2012-2017

Source: MedMarket Diligence Report #S190, “Worldwide Surgical Sealants, Glues, Wound Closure and Anti-Adhesion Markets, 2012-2017.”

These percentage shifts may not seem significant unless one considers that the global market for these products is well over $14 billion.

 

Potential for the Use of Hemostats, Sealants, Glues and Adhesion Prevention Products, Worldwide

The MedMarket Diligence Report #S190, “Worldwide Surgical Sealants, Glues, Wound Closure and Anti-Adhesion Markets, 2012-2017”, details the complete range of sealants & glues technologies used in traumatic, surgical and other wound closure, including tapes, sutures/staples/mechanical closure, hemostats, fibrin sealants/glues and medical adhesives and anti-adhesion products. The report details current clinical and technology developments, with data on products in development (detailing market status) and on the market; market size and forecast; competitor market shares; competitor profiles; and market opportunity. The report provides full year actual data from 2011. The report provides a worldwide forecast to 2017 of the markets for these technologies, with emphasis on the market impact of new technologies through the forecast period. The report provides specific forecasts and shares of the worldwide market by segment for Americas (detail for U.S., Rest of North America and Latin America), Europe (detail for United Kingdom, German, France, Italy, Spain, Rest of Europe), Asia/Pacific (detail for Japan, Korea, Rest of Asia/Pacific) and Rest of World. The report provides background data on the surgical, disease and traumatic wound patient populations targeted by current technologies and those under development, and the current clinical practices in the management of these patients, including the dynamics among the various clinical specialties or subspecialties vying for patient population and facilitating or limiting the growth of technologies. The report establish the current worldwide market size for major technology segments as a baseline for and projecting growth in the market through 2017. The report assesses and projects the composition of the market as technologies gain or lose relative market performance over this period. The report profiles 122 active companies in this industry, providing data on their current products, current market position and products under development.

See description, table of contents and list of exhibits at http://mediligence.com/rpt/rpt-s190.htm.

New fundings in medical technology, March 2014

Fundings for medical technology in March 2014 stand at $593 million, led by the $101 million raised by Golden Meditech Holdings Ltd and the $75 million IPO funding of Lumenis. Below is a list of the month’s top fundings to date:

Company funding Product/technology
Golden Meditech Holdings Ltd has raised $101 million in a round of funding according to press reports Autologous blood recovery products as well as healthcare services
Lumenis Ltd has raised $75 million in an initial public offering according to the company RF and light-based ablation devices in ophthalmology, surgery and aesthetics
Unilife Corporation has secured $60 million in debt funding, according to the company Drug delivery devices
Alphatec’s Spine, Inc., has raised $50 million in a round of funding, according to the company Devices for the treatment of spine disease and trauma
NinePoint Medical, Inc., has raised $38.56 million of a planned $50 million round of funding according to a regulatory filing In vivo, high resolution imaging via optical coherence tomography
Invuity, Inc., has raised $36 million in a Series E round of funding according to the company Technologies to improve access and visualization in minimally invasive surgeries
EarLens Corp. has raised $36 million of a planned $38 million round of funding according to press reports Infrared-based hearing aid

For the complete list of medtech fundings during March 2014, see link.

For a full list of the fundings in medtech, by month, since 2009, see link.