Whenever we complete a new analysis of the global wound management market, as we have just done, we like to present top line findings, such as the top “region-wound segment” growth markets.
We assess the 10-year sales size and growth for 13 different wound product segments worldwide, in major geographic regions and individual countries — USA, Rest of N. America, Latin America, Europe, United Kingdom, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Rest of Europe, Asia/Pacific, Japan, Korea, China, Rest of Asia/Pacific, Rest of World.
Below we show the top 15 combinations of regional market and product segments in descending order of their compound annual growth rate from 2017 to 2026.
As becomes clear, the greatest relative growth in sales in the area of wound management is in several wound care product types — bioengineered skin & skin substitutes, growth factors — and the geographic regions of Japan, Rest of World, China, Germany, Asia-Pacific. This reflects the high level of investment and attention in Asian markets, especially China.
[The complete set of wound market forecast data, from 2016 to 2026, is available at 2018 Wound Management Report #S254. The associated full report, including this data, will be publishing February 2018.]
We present data from our 2016 to 2026 forecast of the global market for wound management products. (Data available, full report this month.)
At a glimpse, you can see the overall trend in global wound management, including the relative size of each market. (The four regional sales charts are shown on the same scale to illustrate this.) Most notably, the USA dominance of this global market is fading, as aggregate Asia/Pacific sales of all wound products will eclipse USA sales within the forecast period.
Looking at just the aggregate of all wound product types, Asia/Pacific relative sales are squeezing out shares in every other region.Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report #S254.
When we then look specifically at the USA versus Asia/Pacific, it illustrates that by 2020, Asia/Pacific’s sales of wound management products will eclipse those of the U.S., making it the largest regional wound management market.
Over the 2017 to 2026 period, the compound annual growth rate for the entire wound management market will approach 6%, a respectable rate of growth for an established market, though not quite high enough to encourage investment in the market as a whole.
Of course, the total wound market is comprised of a number of VERY large, slow-growing segments, like traditional adhesive dressings, gauze dressings, and non-adherent dressings, which have annual sales at $3.8 billion, $3.2 billion, and $1.3 billion, respectively.
The large volume, slow growth of the aggregate masks growth in the following segments:
Bioengineered skin and skin substitutes
These wound care segments have had, and will continue to have, annual growth rates at or near double-digit through 2026.
The end result of variable growth rates is that the 2026 Wound Care Market (worldwide), by comparison to 2017, will show the following changes (up/down) in each segment’s share of the total market.
Big revenues, as in $ billions, are turned over every year in traditional wound dressings and gauze, while emerging technologies designed to have far more impact on wound management are driving the fastest percentage revenue growth. Data from “Wound Management to 2026” (report S254) shows the size-to-growth distribution of wound product revenue streams over the 2017 to 2026 period.
In the post below from 2016, we wrote of what we can expect for medicine 20 years into the future. We review and revise it anew here.
An important determinant of “where medicine will be” in 2035 is the set of dynamics and forces behind healthcare delivery systems, including primarily the payment method, especially regarding reimbursement. It is clear that some form of reform in healthcare will result in a consolidation of the infrastructure paying for and managing patient populations. The infrastructure is bloated and expensive, unnecessarily adding to costs that neither the federal government nor individuals can sustain. This is not to say that I predict movement to a single payer system — that is just one perceived solution to the problem. There are far too many costs in healthcare that offer no benefits in terms of quality; indeed, such costs are a true impediment to quality. Funds that go to infrastructure (insurance companies and other intermediaries) and the demands they put on healthcare delivery work directly against quality of care. So, in the U.S., whether the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) persists (most likely) or is replaced with a single payer system, state administered healthcare (exchanges) or some other as-yet-unidentified form, there will be change in how healthcare is delivered from a cost/management perspective. -[Editor’s note: After multiple attempts by the GOP to “repeal and replace”, the strengths of Obamacare have outweighed its weaknesses in the minds of voters who have thus voiced their opinions to their representatives, many seeking reelection in 2018.]
From the clinical practice and technology side, there will be enormous changes to healthcare. Here are examples of what I see from tracking trends in clinical practice and medical technology development:
Cancer 5 year survival rates will, for many cancers, be well over 90%. Cancer will largely be transformed in most cases to chronic disease that can be effectively managed by surgery, immunology, chemotherapy and other interventions. Cancer and genomics, in particular, has been a lucrative study (see The Cancer Genome Atlas). Immunotherapy developments are also expected to be part of many oncology solutions. Cancer has been a tenacious foe, and remains one we will be fighting for a long time, but the fight will have changed from virtually incapacitating the patient to following protocols that keep cancer in check, if not cure/prevent it. [Editor’s note: Immunology has surged in a wide range of cancer-related research yielding new weapons to cure cancer or render it to routine clinical management.]
Diabetes Type 1 (juvenile onset) will be managed in most patients by an “artificial pancreas”, a closed loop glucometer and insulin pump that will self-regulate blood glucose levels. OR, stem cell or other cell therapies may well achieve success in restoring normal insulin production and glucose metabolism in Type 1 patients. The odds are better that a practical, affordable artificial pancreas will developed than stem or other cell therapy, but both technologies are moving aggressively and will gain dramatic successes within 20 years.
Developments in the field of the “artificial pancreas” have recently gathered considerable pace, such that, by 2035, type 1 blood glucose management may be no more onerous than a house thermostat due to the sophistication and ease-of-use made possible with the closed loop, biofeedback capabilities of the integrated glucometer, insulin pump and the algorithms that drive it, but that will not be the end of the development of better options for type 1 diabetics. Cell therapy for type 1 diabetes, which may be readily achieved by one or more of a wide variety of cellular approaches and product forms (including cell/device hybrids) may well have progressed by 2035 to become another viable alternative for type 1 diabetics. [Editor’s note: Our view of this stands, as artificial pancreases are maturing in development and reaching markets. Cell therapy still offers the most “cure-like” result, which is likely to happen within the next 20 years.]
Diabetes Type 2 (adult onset) will be a significant problem, governed as it is by different dynamics than Type 1. A large body of evidence will exist that shows dramatically reduced incidence of Type 2 associated with obesity management (gastric bypass, satiety drugs, etc.) that will mitigate the growing prevalence of Type 2, but research into pharmacologic or other therapies may at best achieve only modest advances. The problem will reside in the complexity of different Type 2 manifestation, the late onset of the condition in patients who are resistant to the necessary changes in lifestyle and the global epidemic that will challenge dissemination of new technologies and clinical practices to third world populations.
Despite increasing levels of attention being raised to the burden of type 2 worldwide, including all its sequellae (vascular, retinal, kidney and other diseases), the pace of growth globally in type 2 is still such that it will represent a problem and target for pharma, biotech, medical device, and other disciplines. [Editor’s note: the burden of Type 2 on people, families, communities, and governments globally should motivate policy, legislation, and other action, but global initiatives have a long way to travel.]
Cell therapy and tissue engineering will offer an enormous number of solutions for conditions currently treated inadequately, if at all. Below is an illustration of the range of applications currently available or in development, a list that will expand (along with successes in each) over the next 20 years.
Cell therapy will have deeply penetrated virtually every medical specialty by 2035. Most advanced will be those that target less complex tissues: bone, muscle, skin, and select internal organ tissues (e.g., bioengineered bladder, others). However, development will have also followed the money. Currently, development and use of conventional technologies in areas like cardiology, vascular, and neurology entails high expenditure that creates enormous investment incentive that will drive steady development of cell therapy and tissue engineering over the next 20 years, with the goal of better, more long-term and/or less costly solutions.
Gene therapy will be an option for a majority of genetically-based diseases (especially inherited diseases) and will offer clinical options for non-inherited conditions. Advances in the analysis of inheritance and expression of genes will also enable advanced interventions to either ameliorate or actually preempt the onset of genetic disease. As the human genome is the engineering plans for the human body, it is a potential mother lode for the future of medicine, but it remains a complex set of plans to elucidate and exploit for the development of therapies. While genetically-based diseases may readily be addressed by gene therapies in 2035, the host of other diseases that do not have obvious genetic components will resist giving up easy gene therapy solutions. Then again, within 20 years a number of reasonable advances in understanding and intervention could open the gate to widespread “gene therapy” (in some sense) for a breadth of diseases and conditions. [Editor’s note: CRISPR and other gene-editing techniques have accelerated the pace at which practical and affordable gene-therapies will reach the market.]
Drug development will be dramatically more sophisticated, reducing the development time and cost while resulting in drugs that are far more clinically effective (and less prone to side effects).[Editor’s note: We are revising our optimism about drug development being more sophisticated and streamlined. To a measurable degree, “distributed processing systems” have proven far more exciting in principle than practice, since results — marketable drugs derived this way — have been scant. We remain optimistic as a result of the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning, which have have very credible promise to impact swaths of industry, especially in medicine.] This arises from drug candidates being evaluated via distributed processing systems (or quantum computer systems) that can predict efficacy and side effect without need of expensive and exhaustive animal or human testing.The development of effective drugs will have been accelerated by both modeling systems and increases in our understanding of disease and trauma, including pharmacogenomics to predict drug response. It may not as readily follow that the costs will be reduced, something that may only happen as a result of policy decisions.
Most surgical procedures will achieve the ability to be virtually non-invasive. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) will enable highly sophisticated surgery without ever making an abdominal or other (external) incision. Technologies like “gamma knife” and similar will have the ability to destroy tumors or ablate pathological tissue via completely external, energy-based systems. [Editor’s note: In the late 1980s, laparoscopy revolutionized surgery for its less invasiveness. Now, NOTES procedures and external energy technologies (e.g., gamma knife) have now proven to be about as minimally invasive as medical devices can be. To be even less invasive will require development of drugs (including biotechs) that succeed as therapeutic alternatives to any kind of surgery.] By 2035, technologies such as these will measurably reduce inpatient stays, on a per capita basis, since a significant reason for overnight stays is the trauma requiring recovery, and eliminating trauma is a major goal and advantage of minimally invasive technologies (e.g., especially the NOTES technology platform). A wide range of other technologies (e.g., gamma knife, minimally invasive surgery/intervention, etc.) across multiple categories (device, biotech, pharma) will also have emerged and succeeded in the market by producing therapeutic benefit while minimizing or eliminating collateral damage.
Information technology will radically improve patient management. Very sophisticated electronic patient records will dramatically improve patient care via reduction of contraindications, predictive systems to proactively manage disease and disease risk, and greatly improve the decision-making of physicians tasked with diagnosing and treating patients.There are few technical hurdles to the advancement of information technology in medicine, but even in 2035, infotech is very likely to still be facing real hurdles in its use as a result of the reluctance in healthcare to give up legacy systems and the inertia against change, despite the benefits.[Editor’s note: Before AI and other systems will truly have an impact, IT and its policy for healthcare in the next 10 years will solve the problem of health data residing inertly behind walls that hinder efficient use of the rich, patient-specific knowledge that physicians and healthcare systems might use to improve the quality and cost of care.]
Personalized medicine. Perfect matches between a condition and its treatment are the goal of personalized medicine, since patient-to-patient variation can reduce the efficacy of off-the-shelf treatment. The thinking behind gender-specific joint replacement has led to custom-printed 3D implants. The use of personalized medicine will also be manifested by testing to reveal potential emerging diseases or conditions, whose symptoms may be ameliorated or prevented by intervention before onset.
Systems biology will underlie the biology of most future medical advances in the next 20 years. Systems biology is a discipline focused on an integrated understanding of cell biology, physiology, genetics, chemistry, and a wide range of other individual medical and scientific disciplines. It represents an implicit recognition of an organism as an embodiment of multiple, interdependent organ systems and its processes, such that both pathology and wellness are understood from the perspective of the sum total of both the problem and the impact of possible solutions.This orientation will be intrinsic to the development of medical technologies, and will increasingly be represented by clinical trials that throw a much wider and longer-term net around relevant data, staff expertise encompassing more medical/scientific disciplines, and unforeseen solutions that present themselves as a result of this approach.Other technologies being developed aggressively now will have an impact over the next twenty years, including medical/surgical robots (or even biobots), neurotechnologies to diagnose, monitor, and treat a wide range of conditions (e.g., spinal cord injury, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s etc.).
The breadth and depth of advances in medicine over the next 20 years will be extraordinary, since many doors have been recently opened as a result of advances in genetics, cell biology, materials science, systems biology and others — with the collective advances further stimulating both learning and new product development.
Report #290, “Worldwide Markets for Medical and Surgical Sealants, Glues, and Hemostats, 2015-2022.”
Cardiovascular procedures are high volume, big business in the well developed U.S, European, and Asia/Pacific markets. But much potential procedure volume has been tapped in these markets, with any appreciable growth limited to low volume, emerging procedures.
By comparison, the less-tapped “Rest of World” potential (i.e., non-U.S., non-Europe, non-Asia/Pacific) for growth is significant. Below is illustrated the 2016 size and growth to 2022 for the major cardiovascular procedures in the Rest of World.
Source: “Global Dynamics of Surgical and Interventional Cardiovascular Procedures, 2015-2022”, Report #C500 (MedMarket Diligence, LLC)
When does one recognize that horse-and-buggy whips are in decline and auto-mobiles are on the rise?
When does one recognize that a new technology is a definite advance over established ones in the treatment of particular disease, in cost or quality?
Technologies go through life cycles.
A medical technology is introduced that is found effective in the management of a disease. Over time, the technology is improved upon marginally, but eventually a new technology, often radically different, emerges that is more effective or better (cheaper, less invasive, easier to use). It enters the market, takes market share and grows, only to be later eclipsed by a new (apologies) paradigm. Each new technology, marginal or otherwise, advances the limit of what is possible in care.
Predicting the marginal and the more radical innovation is necessary to illustrate where medicine is headed, and its impact. Many stakeholders have interest in this — insurance companies (reimbursing technologies or covering the liabilities), venture capitalists, healthcare providers, patients, and the medical technology companies themselves.
S-curves illustrate the rise in performance or demand over time for new technologies and show the timing and relative impact of newer technologies when they emerge. Importantly, the relative timing and impact of emerging technologies can be qualitatively and quantitatively predicted. Historic data is extremely useful predicting the rise and fall of specific medical technologies in specific disease treatment.
Following are two examples of diseases with multiple technologies arcing through patient demand over time.
Ischemic Heart Disease Past, Current, and Future Technologies
Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty
Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB)
Stem-cell impregnated heart patches
The treatment of ischemic heart disease, given the seriousness of the disease and its prevalence, has a long history in medicine and within the past fifty years has a remarkable timeline of innovations. Ischemia is condition in which inadequate blood flow to an area due to constriction of blood vessels from inflammation or atherosclerosis can cause cell death. In the case of cardiac ischemia, in which the coronary arteries that supply the heart itself with blood are occluded, the overall cell death can result in myocardial infarction and death.
The effort to re-establish adequate blood flow to heart muscle has evolved from highly invasive surgery in which coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) requires cutting through the patient’s sternum and other tissues to access the heart, then graft arteries and/or veins to flow to the poorly supplied tissue, to (2) minimally invasive, endoscope procedures that do not require cutting the sternum to access the heart and perform the graft and significantly improve healing times and reduced complications, to as illustrated, multiple technologies rise and fall over time with their impacts and their timing considered.
Technology S-Curves in the Management of Ischemic Heart Disease
(Note: These curves are generally for illustrative purposes only; some likely dynamics may not be well represented in the above. Also note that, in practice, demand for old technologies doesn’t cease, but declines at a rate connected to the rise of competing technologies, so after peaking, the S-curves start a descent at various rates toward zero. Also, separately note that the “PTCA” labeled curve corresponds to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, encompassing the percutaneous category of approaches to ischemic heart disease. PTCA itself has evolved from balloon angioplasty alone to the adjunctive use of stents of multiple material types with or without drug elution and even bioabsorbable stents.) Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC
Resulting Technology Shifts
Falling: Open surgical instrumentation, bare metal stents. Rising and leveling: thoracoscopic instrumentation, monitors Rising later: stem-cells, extracellular matrices, atherosclerosis-reducing drugs Rising even later: gene therapy
The minimally invasive technologies enabled by thoracoscopy (used in MIDCAB) and catheterization pulled just about all the demand out of open coronary artery bypass grafting, though the bare metal stents used initially alongside angioplasty have also been largely replaced by drug-eluting stents, which also may be replaced by drug-eluting balloon angioplasty. Stem cells and related technologies used to deliver them will later represent new growth in treatment of ischemia, at least to some degree at the expense of catheterization (PTCA and percutaneous CABG). Eventually, gene therapy may prove able to prevent the ischemia to develop in the first place.
Wound Management Past, Current, and Future Technologies
Hydrogel, alginate, and antimicrobial dressings
Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT)
Bioengineered skin substitutes
Another great example of a disease or condition treated by multiple evolving technologies over time is wound management, which has evolved from simple gauze dressings to advanced dressings, to systems like negative pressure wound therapy, hyperbaric oxygen and others, to biological growth factors to bioengineered skin and skin substitutes.
Falling: Traditional gauze and other simple dressings Falling: NPWT, hyperbaric oxygen Rising: Advanced wound dressings, bioengineered skin, growth factors
Wound management has multiple technologies concurrently available, rather than sequential (when one largely replaces the other) over time. Unsurprisingly, traditional dressings are in decline. Equipment-related technologies like NPWT and hyperbaric oxygen are on the wane as well. While wound management is not a high growth area, advanced dressings are rising due to their ability to heal wounds faster, an important factor considering that chronic, slow-healing wounds are a significant contributor to high costs. Bioengineered skin is patient-specific, characterized by faster healing and, therefore, rising.
The nature of graphene’s structure and its resulting traits are responsible for a tremendous burst of research focused on applications.
Find cancer cells. Research at the University of Illinois at Chicago showed that interfacing brain cells on the surface of a graphene sheet allows the ability to differentiate a single hyperactive cancerous cell from a normal cell. This represents a noninvasive technique for the early detection of cancer.
Graphene sheets capture cells efficiently. In research similar to that U. Illinois, modification of the graphene sheet by mild heating enables annealing of specific targets/analytes on the sheet which then can be tested. This, too, offers noninvasive diagnostics.
Contact lens coated with graphene. While the value of the development is yet to be seen, researchers in Korea have learned that contact lenses coated with graphene are able to shield wearers’ eyes from electromagnetic radiation and dehydration.
Cheaply mass-producing graphene using soybeans. A real hurdle to graphene’s widespread use in a variety of applications is the cost to mass produce it, but Australia’s CSIRO has shown that an ambient air process to produce graphene from soybean oil, which is likely to accelerate graphenes’ development for commercial use.
Advanced materials development teams globally are spinning out new materials that have highly specialized features, with the ability to be manufactured under tight control.
3D manufacturing leads to highly complex, bio-like materials. With applications across many industries using “any material that can be crushed into nanoparticles”, University of Washington research has demonstrated the ability to 3D engineer complex structures, including for use as biological scaffolds.
Hydrogels and woven fiber fabric. Hokkaido University researchers have produced woven polyampholyte (PA) gels reinforced with glass fiber. Materials made this way have the structural and dynamic features to make them amenable for use in artificial ligaments and tendons.
Sound-shaping metamaterial. Research teams at the Universities of Sussex and Bristol have developed acoustic metamaterials capable of creating shaped sound waves, a development that will have a potentially big impact on medical imaging.
In vitro testing models that more accurately reflect biological systems for drug testing and development will facilitate clinical diagnostics and clinical research.
Stem cells derived neuronal networks grown on a chip. Scientists at the University of Bern have developed an in vitro stem cell-based bioassay grown on multi-electrode arrays capable of detecting the biological activity of Clostridium botulinum neurotoxins.
Used for mimicking heart’s biomechanical properties. At Vanderbilt University, scientists have developed an organ-on-a-chip configuration that mimics the heart’s biomechanical properties. This will enable drug testing to gauge impact on heart function.
Used for offering insights on premature aging, vascular disease. Brigham and Women’s Hospital has developed organ-on-a-chip model designed to study progeria (Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome), which primarily affects vascular cells, making this an affective method for the first time to simultaneously study vascular diseases and aging.
Below is an excerpt from, “Global Dynamics of Surgical and Interventional Cardiovascular Procedures, 2015-2022,” (Report #C500 described, available online).
Selection of specific management protocols for patients with aortic aneurysms depends on the disease morphology as well as patient’s age, overall health status, and comorbidities involved. In cases involving smaller and relatively stable abdominal or thoracic aortic aneurysm (AAA or TAA), watchful waiting represents a commonly preferred approach. Radical surgical or endovascular interventions are generally reserved for cases when the diameter of the aneurismal sac is larger than 5cm to 5.5cm, or the annual expansion rate exceeds 1.0 cm, or when the aneurysm becomes symptomatic.
Surgical Repair of Aortic Aneurysms
Prior to the advent of AAA/TAA endovascular repair tools and techniques, a highly invasive and risky surgical repair procedure constituted the only curative option for patients with advanced and rupture prone aortic aneurysm. Conducted under the general anesthesia the procedure takes a few hours and entails a major and highly traumatic operation with a 10-15 inch cut in abdominal wall, clamping and isolation of aneurysmic segment of aorta, incision into the aneurysm, evacuation of the clot contained within, placement of a synthetic graft, and wrapping of the graft with remnants of the aortic wall.
The typical surgical aneurysm repair is associated with a substantial (5% to 8%) mortality rate and serious complications, such as stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure etc.
Due to the close proximity to the heart, the risk and complication rates of surgical intervention for aneurysm repair on the thoracic aorta increase multifold resulting in an average procedural mortality rate of up to 30 percent.
The high cost of the procedure is largely the result of extended ICU and hospital stays, which can last upwards of a week (but average roughly 10-12 days). Further, postoperative recovery may require up to six additional weeks subsequent to discharge, making temporary disability a major consideration for many patients.
Notwithstanding these drawbacks, open surgical aortic aneurysm repair is still commonly regarded as highly effective treatment modality that virtually eliminates the risk of aneurismal sac rupture and does not require extensive postoperative follow-up exams or revisions.
However, because of high prevalence of elderly and health-impaired persons in diagnosed aortic aneurysm caseloads and traumatic nature of AAA/TAA surgery, only a fraction of the patients who could benefit from surgical aneurysm repair is deemed eligible for such a procedure.
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair with Endovascular Stent-Grafts
During the past two decades, advances in interventional technologies paved the way for the advent of a considerably less invasive and risky endovascular AAA repair procedure. The procedure involves a transcatheter deployment of the specially designed endovascular prosthesis (typically combining sealing functions of the vascular graft and full or partial stenting support structure) into a defective segment of aorta with the goal of excluding the aneurysmal sac from blood circulation.
The endovascular stent-grafts (SGs) – which come both in self-expanding or balloon-expandable versions – are typically anchored to an undamaged part of the aorta both above and below the aneurysm via a compression fit or/and with a special fixation mechanism like hooks, barbs, etc.
To accommodate a great morphological diversity of aortic aneurysms the vast majority of endovascular SGs is employing a modular design concept providing the aorto iliac, bifurcated and straight tubular device configurations to cover a variety of AAA indications. Several SG systems also feature an open stenting structure at proximal end to enable suprarenal device deployment required in about 30% to 35% of all AAA cases warranting intervention.
In its idea, the endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm was intended to produce clinical outcomes comparable to these yielded by the open surgery, while reducing the associated trauma, recovery time, morbidity and the overall treatment cost. It was also generally expected that availability of less-invasive endovascular treatment option would allow to extend caseloads coverage to sizable rupture-prone AAA patient subsets who are poor surgical candidates.
Limitations of Endovascular AAA Repair
Findings from numerous clinical studies and real-life experience in the field seem to indicate that endovascular aortic aneurysm repair via stent-graft placement tends to provide immediate procedural outcomes comparable to these obtainable with open surgery. Furthermore, the typical ICU and hospital stay for endovascular AAA repair averages 2 days (though it may last twice longer for patients with significant comorbidities). All of these translates into reduced inpatient costs of AAA repair relative to open surgery, although the high price of stent-grafting devices largely offsets these cost savings. Post-discharge recovery is also shortened from weeks or months to an average 7-10-day period.
Unfortunately, comparative long-term clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the endovascular approach to aortic aneurysm repair appears to be problematic due to unavoidable shortcomings of available aortic stent-graft designs and complications associated with their less than perfect performance in situ.
The major problems associated with the endovascular AAA repair approach include relatively high incidence of endoleaks (up to 15%), endotension, and device failure, which multiply the risk of catastrophic aneurysm rupture and necessitate costly revisions (in up to 35% of the cases) as well as long-term (or life-long) patient surveillance (with mandatory imaging exams). Due to that, the actual overall cost of endovascular repair in many considerably exceeds expenses incurred in traditional open surgery.
Another limitation of endovascular stent-grafting relates to its ability to accommodate complex aortic aneurysm morphology and branch involvement. Based on some end-user and industry reporting, only about 50% of patients that develop intervention-warranting AAAs are considered good candidates for endovascular repair with currently available product configurations.
According to some recent reporting, endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) treatment with certain stent grafts also appears to be associated with higher late mortality rates (due to aneurysm rupture) compared to surgical AAA repair. Based on available long-term follow-up data, mortality in AAA patients retrofitted with the market-leading SG averages 1.3% and 1.5% at four and five years compared to 0.7% and 0.9% for AAA surgery.
Endovascular Repair of TAA
Introduced in Europe and the U.S. in 1998 and 2005, accordingly, endovascular techniques for aneurysm (and aortic dissection) repair on thoracic aorta represented a logical extension of the very same basic concept and technology platforms that enabled the development of AAA stent-grafts.
Because of extremely high mortality and morbidity rates associated with TAA surgery, the need for minimally invasive endovascular treatment option was even more compelling than that in AAA case.
Similar to AAA endovascular repair devices, TAA stent-grafts are intended to minimize the risk of catastrophic thoracic aortic aneurysm rupture via effective exclusion (isolation) of the aneurismal sac from blood circulation.
Unlike AAA implants, commercially available TAA stent-grafting devices feature relatively simple tubular unibody architecture with sealing cuffs (or flanges) at proximal and distal end.
Insertion of TAA SGs is done under fluoroscopic guidance via a singular femoral puncture with the use of standard transcatheter techniques. Depending on the aneurysm morphology, one or two overlapping devices might be used to ensure proper aneurismal sac isolation.
The average ICU and hospital stays and post-discharge recovery period for endovascular TAA repair procedure are generally similar to these for AAA stent-grafting intervention.
Although practical clinical experience with endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysm remains somewhat limited, findings from European and U.S. clinical studies with TAA stent-grafting tend to be very encouraging. Based on these findings, stent-grafting of rupture-prone aneurysm on ascending thoracic aorta can be performed with close to perfect technical success rate yielding radical reduction in intraoperative mortality and complications compared to TAA surgery as well as impressive improvement in long-term patient survival.
Similar to AAA endografting, the main problems associated with the use of TAA SG systems include significant incidence of endoleaks and occasional device migration which require reintervention.
Aortic Aneurysm Repair Procedure Volumes
Based on the industry reporting, national and international healthcare authority data, and MedMarket Diligence estimates, in 2015, approximately 915 thousand patients worldwide were diagnosed with rupture-prone abdominal or thoracic aortic aneurysms and aortic dissections warranting radical intervention, of which roughly 359.5 thousand (or about 39.3%) were actually referred for surgical or transcatheter treatment. Covered APAC market geography (with combined population of about 2,63 billion) accounted for the largest 37.6% share of all aortic aneurysm repairs performed, followed by the U.S. with 25.6%, largest Western European states with 21.3% and the rest-of-the-world with the remaining 15.5%.
Endovascular stent-grafting techniques were utilized in approximately 162.5 thousand aortic aneurysm repair procedures in 2015, which included an estimated 133 thousand AAA-related and about 29.5 thousand TAA-related interventions (including these targeting selected thoracic aortic dissections).
The cited figures reflected a disparity both in the relative volumes of treated AAA and TAA patients and, especially, in the share of these managed with the less invasive EVAR techniques. The latter indicator was the highest for the U.S. (~75%), compared to 52% for Western Europe, 39% for APAC and only 36.6% for the ROW market geography.
During the forecast period covered in the report, the total global volume of endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs is projected to grow 5.7% per annum to approximately 243 thousand procedures, combining a 5.5% annual expansion in AAA-related interventions with a 6.6% average annual increase in TAA (aortic dissection)-related interventions.
Projected healthy gains in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair procedures should reflect continuous penetration of non-surgical (no option) AAA and TAA patient caseloads, coupled with significant incursion into surgery-eligible patient subsets both in AAA, TAA, and aortic dissection indications. Increasing reliance on utilization of less traumatic AAA and TAA stent-grafting techniques will be expedited by ongoing qualitative improvements in the endograft and delivery tools design that keep yielding more reliable, durable, versatile, and end-user friendly systems with reduced propensity to mechanical and functional failure (device kinking, fracture, endoleaks, migration, etc.) and associated clinical complications.
The largest relative gains in AAA and TAA EVAR procedures (10.9% and 11.8%, accordingly) can be expected in covered APAC territories (mostly China and India) and grossly underserved ROW zone (6.5% and 7.5%). Largely mature U.S., Western European (and Japanese) markets are likely to register a low single digit advances in utilization of endovascular AAA/TAA repair techniques.
The global procedure volume forecast for aortic aneurysm repair is presented below.
Projected Dynamics of Aortic Aneurysm Repair Procedures, World Total, 2015-2022 (#000)
Medtech fundings for February 2017 stand at $500.4 million, led by the $75 million credit facility secured by BioDelivery Sciences, the $45 million private placement by Corindus Vascular Robotics, the $41 million funding of Rhythm, Inc., the $37.2 million funding of Entellus Medical, and the $33 million funding of startup Surrozen.
Below are the top fundings for the month. For a complete list of fundings, see link.
Source: Compiled by MedMarket Diligence, LLC
For a historical listing of fundings in medtech, see link.