3 ms·

What are people already doing in this space? Specifically, are there any technologies out there or in development that aim to reduce infection rates related to

by Cogito 11y ago

What are people already doing in this space? Specifically, are there any technologies out there or in development that aim to reduce infection rates related to the use of medical devices? What remediation processes are used to reduce infection rates, that are not technology based? What is the cost for these, and how does that compare to the cost of using your technology? I really like the idea of improving outcomes by simply swapping out one piece of equipment for a better piece (especially as you are not making the process more complicated, it's a straight upgrade).

jonwachob91 11y ago
Thank you for the questions! Sharklet developed a micron sized pattern for use on catheters, and has licensed the pattern to Cook Medical. But the transaction was completed a few years ago (2013) and nothing has come to market. There is no clear evidence why this is, but we do know they are using pressure stamping to texture the catheters, a process that is still expensive and time intensive. Their patent didn't cover manufacturing, just the texture pattern. Inaddition to our lower cost manufacturing, we can texture at the nano-scale. Bacteria tends to be 1-3 micron's in size, any surface bigger then them and they can rest and attach. Because Sharklet/Cook use a micron-scale pattern some bacteria can still adhere, you still get a deep reduction in bacteria adhesion but it's not better then what we can observe at the nano-scale. The CDC, and hospitals, are primarily turning to better processes. Ensuring that central line catheters are routinely cleaned, no clots are forming, little things like that. Try and identify any clots early to give maximum time to get a new catheter. Conduct additional testing to look for infections and treat as early as possible. Those are all things that hospitals can easily do and have been doing quiet well, it's just not enough. Catheters are incredibly price sensitive, they are treated like a commodity and no one wants to pay any extra then they have too. Adding and additional few pennies to the overall cost would have hurt us a few years ago. But the Affordable Care Act is our friend, ANY infection that a patient can connect to a hospital (whether it's the hospitals fault or not) has to be treated and paid for by the hospital. All of a sudden a few extra pennies now can save a hospital tens of thousands later. Our financial story won't depend on an out-price cost comparison, but a reduction of later hospital expenses (not sure the correct finance term for that).

by Cogito 11y ago

jonwachob91 11y ago

Thank you for the questions! Sharklet developed a micron sized pattern for use on catheters, and has licensed the pattern to Cook Medical. But the transaction was completed a few years ago (2013) and nothing has come to market. There is no clear evidence why this is, but we do know they are using pressure stamping to texture the catheters, a process that is still expensive and time intensive. Their patent didn't cover manufacturing, just the texture pattern. Inaddition to our lower cost manufacturing, we can texture at the nano-scale. Bacteria tends to be 1-3 micron's in size, any surface bigger then them and they can rest and attach. Because Sharklet/Cook use a micron-scale pattern some bacteria can still adhere, you still get a deep reduction in bacteria adhesion but it's not better then what we can observe at the nano-scale. The CDC, and hospitals, are primarily turning to better processes. Ensuring that central line catheters are routinely cleaned, no clots are forming, little things like that. Try and identify any clots early to give maximum time to get a new catheter. Conduct additional testing to look for infections and treat as early as possible. Those are all things that hospitals can easily do and have been doing quiet well, it's just not enough. Catheters are incredibly price sensitive, they are treated like a commodity and no one wants to pay any extra then they have too. Adding and additional few pennies to the overall cost would have hurt us a few years ago. But the Affordable Care Act is our friend, ANY infection that a patient can connect to a hospital (whether it's the hospitals fault or not) has to be treated and paid for by the hospital. All of a sudden a few extra pennies now can save a hospital tens of thousands later. Our financial story won't depend on an out-price cost comparison, but a reduction of later hospital expenses (not sure the correct finance term for that).