`
`http;ligalewayovidcomlremDlserver1lovidweb.cgi
`
`phenomenon, and a slightly greater pressure gradient across the valves than a mechanical valve (MV)
`[Bjork-Shiley monostrut valve]. The flow and pulsatile efficiency were adequate and similar to that of a VAD
`with MVs. In in vitro durability and hemolysis tests, a VAD with STV functioned well for 54 days and showed
`similar hemolytio profiles to a VAD with MVs. In an in vivo acute experiment using an adult sheep. our device
`was problem-free providing sufficient output as a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Although it will be
`necessary to decrease the pressure gradient across this STV in the future: our device showed efficient
`performance as a practical land cost-effective VAD for short term use.
`
`
`Citation 3.
`
`Unique Identifier
`94272093
`Authors
`
`Sung HW. Tu R. Shen SH. Witzel TH. Lin D. Hata C. Kingsbury CJ. Noishiki Y. Tomizawa Y. Quijano RC.
`Institution
`
`Department of Chemical Engineering. National Center University. Taoyuan. Taiwan. Republic of China.
`
`Title
`
`A newly developed porcine heart valve bioprosthesis fixed with an epoxy compound. An experimental
`evaluation.
`Source
`
`ASAIO Journal. 40(2):192—8. 1994 Apr-Jun.
`Local Messages
`Owned by MU HSL
`Abstract
`
`Concerns with currently available bioprostheses are calcification, long-term durability. and functional and
`hemodynamic performance. It has been well known that these concerns are all more or less related to the
`fixatives. glutaraldehyde or formaldehyde, used in preserving bioprostheses. To address these concerns, we
`undertook the development of a porcine bioprosthesis fixed with an epoxy compound. It was discovered that
`the porcine leaflets fixed with the epoxy compound appeared more natural than those preserved with
`glutaraldehyde. The performance of this newly developed epoxy compound bioprosthesis (three samples) was
`evaluated in a juvenile sheep model. The results were compared to those of its glutaraldehyde counterpart
`(three samples). Two-dimensional echocardiographic inspection of the valvular leaflet motion indicated that the
`epoxy compound leaflets were more pliable than their glutaraldehyde counterparts. In addition, the epoxy
`compound valve appeared to open more widely than the glutaraldehyde valve. Color Doppler flow mapping
`demonstrated that the blood flow distal to the epoxy compound valve was slightly broader than that observed
`distal to the glutaraldehyde valve. Moreover. at retrieval. less calcium and pannus ingrowth were observed in
`the epoxy compound valve than its glutaraldehyde counterpart. The results of this preliminary evaluation
`indicated that the performance of this newly developed epoxy compound valve was at least equivalent to its
`glutaraldehyde counterpart. if not better.
`
`
`
`
`- m. ‘-—
`
`Copyright (Cl 1999W
`Version: 4.1.0 source ID 145821.135. Revision: 1,405.1.4
`
`2 of 2
`
`5l15l'00 12:46 PM
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2015 - Page 1
`Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic Vascular, Inc.,
`& Medtronic Corevalve, LLC
`
`v. Troy R. Norred, M.D.
`Case |PR2014-00110
`
`
`
`NORRED EXHIBIT 2015 - Page 2
`
`
`
`2if.
`
`
`
`S/W
`
`
`
`
`mac}hi2:A'Lu’bv5%:
`
`
`
`5gxz
`
`I 5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
