throbber
Ovid: Bannock: Circulation. Von.l)3(4).l-‘chruary IS. [9%.7 I}? l‘)
`
`Intp:h’gatewuy.twidxomt’rel4I[litterverlfuvidwebegi
`
`NI pride
`
`Dobutamlne
`
` 'mm
`
`a “asthma": in Adam.“
`
`W . -__,_\J-_.__,__,____,_\pc...-_a... “soup-m. 4,.._u..d'w..__v.-_
`
`
`Figure I. High-pulse repetition frequency Doppler recordings in a patient after valve
`replacement for aortic stenosis. Left, At baseline, a normal symmetric Doppler spectrum
`reaching 1 tnfs was observed. Middle, During nipride, the atterload reduction was associated
`with a dagger-shaped Doppler spectrum peaking in late systole at 3 mfs. Right, lnotropic
`stimulation by dobutamine resulted in a similar intracavitary flow velocity pattern with a
`maximal velocity of3.8 mils.
`
`Statistical Analyslsfl
`
`Results are expressed as mean plusr’minus SD. Unpaired and paired t tests
`were used to compare appropriate data. Fisher's exact test was performed for
`comparison of categorical variables. One—way ANOVA, followed by
`Bon‘ferroni's test, was performed for multiple comparisons. Sensitivity and
`specificity were calculated as usual. Multivariate analysis was performed
`separately on Doppler echocardiographic and catheterization data to detect
`their values in predicting postoperative AFV. Optimal diagnostic accuracy
`level for a given factor was defined as the value of the given factor at which
`sensitivity and specificity are equal. A value ofP less or equal to .05 was
`considered significant.
`
`Resultsfl
`
`All patients underwent both preoperative and postoperative Doppler
`echocardiographic studies. The latter was performed 7 plusi’minus 3 days
`(range, 2 to 10 days) after valve replacement After surgery, nipride was given
`in 93 patients and dobutamine in 96 patients, Three patients did not receiVe
`nipride because of persistent hypotension (< 100 mm Hg). Four patients
`received neither nipride nor dobutamine because AFV was present at rest (>
`3.? 1112’s).
`
`Hemodynamicsfl
`
`In the whole population, nipride induced a decrease in systolic pressure and
`an increase in heart rate (table I). Dobutamine infusion increased heart rate,
`whereas systolic blood pressure remained unchanged. Patients with resting
`AFV had significantly higher heart rates and lower systolic pressures at
`baseline and during dobutamine infusion compared with pati
`resting AFV. A comparison of patients according to the pres NORRED EXHIBIT 2012 _ page 1
`provoked AFV showed them to be similar with respect to he Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Vascular, |nc.,
`& Medtronic Corevalve, LLC
`
`.
`-
`301 IR
`
`v. Troy R. Norred, M.D.
`Case |PR2014-00110
`
`

`

`Ovid: Barlunck: Circulation. Vn...93t4).FehrlmI3-' IS. 19%.? l2-7 l9
`
`It!lpa’a’gntewaym'idxomtrel4l[liserveerovitlwcbegi
`
`Nipride
`
`Dobutamlne
`
`
`
`.
`
`'
`..
`
`I
`,l m
`
`.
`
`t
`
`it“tail
`
`.
`
`.
`
`‘
`
`'1 mt.
`
`{1 Manchu"... «A «Animal
`
`--«t'-*-e--——--«i~~--*---- WW»- 4.“....,«...._____._
`
`
`Figure I. High-pulse repetition frequency Doppler recordings in a patient after valve
`replacement for aortic stenosis. Left, At baseline. at normal symmetric Doppler spectrum
`teaching 1 this was observed. Middle, During nipride, the afterload reduction was associated
`with a dagger-shaped Doppler spectrum peaking in late systole at 3 mils. Right, lnotropic
`stimulation by dobutamine resulted in a similar intracavitary flow velocity pattern with a
`maximal velocity of 3.8 mils.
`
`Statistical Analyslsxl
`
`Results are expressed as mean plusfminus SD. Unpaired and paired t tests
`were used to compare appropriate data. Fishcr’s exact test was performed for
`comparison of categorical variables. One-way ANOVA, followed by
`Bonferroni's test, was performed for multiple comparisons. Sensitivity and
`specificity were calculated as usual. Multivariate analysis was performed
`separately on Doppler echocardiographic and catheterization data to detect
`their values in predicting postoperative AFV. Optimal diagnostic accuracy
`level for a given factor was defined as the value of the given factor at which
`sensitivity and specificity are equal. A value ofl’ less or equal to .05 was
`considered significant.
`
`Resultsll
`
`All patients underwent both preoperative and postoperative Doppler
`echocardiographic studies. The latter was performed 7 plusfminus 3 days
`(range, 2 to 10 days) after valve replacement. After surgery, nipride was given
`in 93 patients and dobutamine in 96 patients. Three patients did not receive
`nipride because of persistent hypotension (< 100 mm Hg). Four patients
`received neither nipride nor dobutamine because AFV was present at rest (5
`3.7 1113's).
`
`Hemodynamicsfl
`
`In the whole population, nipride induced a decrease in systolic pressure and
`an increase in heart rate (Table I). Dobutamine infusion increased heart rate,
`whereas systolic blood pressure remained unchanged. Patients with resting
`AFV had significantly higher heart rates and lower systolic pressures at
`baseline and during dobutamine infusion compared with patients without
`resting AFV. A comparison of patients according to the presence or absence of
`provoked AFV showed them to be similar with reSpect to heart rate, blood
`
`5 of IR
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2012 - Page 1
`
`Stillfllil 8154 [’M
`
`

`

`/
`
`\ i
`
`//
`//
`1/
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2012 - Page 2
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket