throbber

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.A.R.L.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-01341 (Patent 8,142,413)
`Case IPR2020-01342 (Patent 8,142,413)
`Case IPR2020-01343 (Patent RE 46,116)
`Case IPR2020-01344 (Patent RE 46,116)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Lorenzo Azzalini
`
`I, Dr. Lorenzo Azzalini, hereby declare as follows:
`
`I previously submitted a declaration in connection with the following IPRs
`
`before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board: IPR2020-00126, IPR2020-00127,
`
`IPR2020-00128, IPR2020-00129, IPR2020-00130, IPR2020-00132, IPR2020-
`
`00134, IPR2020-00135, IPR2020-00136, IPR2020-00137, and IPR2020-00138.
`
`My opinions from my original declaration dated September 21, 2020, attached
`
`hereto as Appendix A, remain true and correct, and I hereby adopt and submit
`
`

`

`Dated: May S , 2021
`
`Dr. Lorenzo Azzalini
`
`Page 2
`
`Teleflex EX. 2151
`
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`TELEFLEX INNOVATIONS S.À.R.L.
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00126 (Patent 8,048,032 B2)
`IPR2020-00127 (Patent 8,048,032 B2)
`IPR2020-00128 (Patent RE45,380 E)
`IPR2020-00129 (Patent RE45,380 E)
`IPR2020-00130 (Patent RE45,380 E)
`IPR2020-00132 (Patent RE45,760 E)
`IPR2020-00134 (Patent RE45,760 E)
`IPR2020-00135 (Patent RE45,776 E)
`IPR2020-00136 (Patent RE45,776 E)
`IPR2020-00137 (Patent RE47,379 E)
` IPR2020-00138 (Patent RE47,379 E)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Lorenzo Azzalini
`
`I, Dr. Lorenzo Azzalini, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am currently the Director of Complex Coronary Interventions at
`
`VCU Health Pauley Heart Center in Richmond, Virginia, where I am a practicing
`
`interventional cardiologist as well as an associate professor of medicine at Virginia
`

`
`1 
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`

`

`Commonwealth University. I received my medical degree from the University of
`
`Padua in Padua, Italy in 2006. I went on to conduct my Cardiology residency at
`
`Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau in Barcelona, Spain, which I completed in
`
`2013. After my residency I conducted two Interventional Cardiology fellowships,
`
`one in 2013-2015 at the Montreal Heart Institute in Montreal, Quebec, Canada and
`
`a second in 2019-2020 at The Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. Between 2015
`
`and 2019 I was Co-Director of the Chronic Total Occlusion Program at San
`
`Raffaele Hospital, in Milan, Italy. A copy of my CV is attached to this declaration
`
`as Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Since at least 2013, a major part of my practice has included
`
`performing percutaneous coronary intervention (“PCI”) procedures, which
`
`includes among other things performing balloon angioplasties and placing stents.
`
`In the course of my career, I have performed thousands of such procedures, and I
`
`closely keep up with new developments and techniques for PCI procedures.
`
`3.
`
`Guide extension catheters, like GuideLiner, have become an
`
`indispensable device for interventional cardiologists, particularly those that
`
`practice in the area of complex percutaneous coronary interventions (known as
`
`“complex PCI”).
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Insufficient guide catheter backup support has been a problem for
`
`interventional cardiology procedures since at least the early 1990’s, when
`

`
`2 
`
`

`

`cardiologists began to perform PCI procedures with some regularity. This was
`
`particularly true for what we refer to as “complex” cases where the patient’s
`
`anatomy is difficult to navigate and/or the location and type of lesion being treated
`
`is particularly difficult.
`
`5.
`
`Long before the invention of the GuideLiner, there were various
`
`techniques that interventional cardiologists attempted to use to deal with the
`
`problem of guide catheter backout (or poor guide catheter support), but these
`
`techniques were often not successful and posed greater risk to the patient. These
`
`techniques included use of larger (than otherwise needed) guide catheters for
`
`increased rigidity, deep seating of a guide catheter’s distal end within a coronary
`
`artery, and/or use of a second guidewire as part of a “buddy wire” technique. Not
`
`only did each of these techniques increase procedural risks to the patient’s health,
`
`they each took additional procedure time which can add further risks to the patient.
`
`As procedure time is lengthened, the patient’s anatomy is more likely to constrict,
`
`a dissection of vessels becomes more likely, plaque on vessel walls is more likely
`
`to break off and potentially cause a stroke or distal embolization (which can lead to
`
`acute myocardial infarction), the patient may be subjected to excessive amounts of
`
`contrast media (which are deleterious for the kidneys), and the patient is subjected
`
`to more radiation in connection with fluoroscopic imaging (which exposes the
`
`patient to higher risk for skin injury and potentially cancer). For at least these
`

`
`3 
`
`

`

`reasons, pre-GuideLiner techniques for dealing with the long-existing problem of
`
`poor guide catheter support were not desirable solutions.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Another technique that was employed to try to deal with the problem
`
`of poor guide support was to use a longer, full-length over-the-wire catheter inside
`
`a guide catheter and two hemostasis valves in what is referred to as a “mother-and-
`
`child” configuration. This approach was not a desirable solution and was never
`
`widely adopted. Among other reasons, in the vast majority of cases the cardiologist
`
`does not determine that a guide extension catheter is needed until the middle of the
`
`procedure. Given the overall length of the mother-and-child configuration, a 270-
`
`400 cm guidewire is necessary to employ this technique, but such a guidewire
`
`length is not what interventional cardiologists typically start a procedure with due
`
`to the need for a dedicated second operator helping with balloon and stent
`
`exchange. Rather, a shorter 180-190 cm “rapid exchange length” guidewire is
`
`commonly used as this is compatible with the rapid exchange balloons and stents
`
`used to treat coronary lesions and can be manipulated by a single operator.
`
`Accordingly, to attempt the mother-and-child technique, the cardiologist would
`
`have to pull out the already positioned rapid exchange length guidewire and
`
`replace it with a longer guidewire. This is highly undesirable because once a
`
`guidewire is in place across a lesion to be treated the interventional cardiologist
`
`does not want to lose that position. It is often difficult, and sometimes impossible,
`

`
`4 
`
`

`

`to regain that guidewire position a second time with the longer wire. Even if the
`
`guidewire position can be regained, it will be a considerable loss of time, further
`
`subjecting the patient to the risks discussed above.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`The mother-and-child approach also needs two operators. This need
`
`for two operators is highly undesirable because needing two operators means there
`
`are two sets of hands being controlled by two people where coordination is
`
`important. Inevitably there are miscommunications and misleading tactile
`
`feedback, both of which can inhibit successful performance of an interventional
`
`procedure. Requiring two operators also adds significant costs to the procedure.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`For all of these reasons, the mother-and-child technique did not solve
`
`the long-existing problem of insufficient backup support.
`
`
`
`9. When the GuideLiner product launched in 2009, it changed the field
`
`of interventional cardiology for the better. It gave cardiologists a completely new
`
`type of device that finally solved the long-existing guide catheter backout problem.
`
`Back in that period, I remember senior interventional cardiologists hailing the
`
`introduction of this new device as a major breakthrough in our specialty, greatly
`
`simplifying and improving balloon and particularly stent delivery through tortuous
`
`and calcified coronary arteries.
`
`10.
`
`I have used GuideLiner devices over 400 times. In my opinion,
`
`GuideLiner provided cardiologists, for the first time, with a rapid exchange device
`

`
`5 
`
`

`

`(i.e., a device usable with the shorter 180-190 cm rapid exchange length guidewire)
`
`that could readily be used to provide backup support. The GuideLiner could be
`
`advanced into the coronary arteries, beyond the end of the guide catheter, and
`
`enable stents and balloons to be delivered to the most difficult of lesions inside the
`
`coronary anatomy. The GuideLiner provided these advantages without the
`
`drawbacks of the previous ad hoc work-arounds, such as mother-and-child and the
`
`buddy wire technique. GuideLiner could be used by a single operator, on the fly
`
`(i.e., without the need to remove the previously inserted guidewire and recross the
`
`lesion with another, longer wire), with very little additional procedure time and
`
`was a remarkably safer approach. GuideLiner reduced the risks of dissection, wire
`
`wrap associated with the buddy wire technique, and overexposure to radiation and
`
`imaging dye due to excessively laborious and inefficient gimmicks associated with
`
`the alternative techniques described above. In my experience, one of the major
`
`advantages of GuideLiner was its low profile, and the ability to deliver it to very
`
`distal (i.e., deep) locations within the coronary arteries. Once advanced to the
`
`desired location, the position achieved by the GuideLiner represented the new
`
`“base of operations” from which the operator could deliver the device (e.g., a
`
`stent), with much more pushability and ultimately likelihood of achieving the
`
`desired final position. In summary, the GuideLiner gave the operator the
`

`
`6 
`
`

`

`confidence of a speedy, effortless, and safe delivery of balloons and stents through
`
`difficult anatomies.
`
`
`
`11.
`
`In addition, before GuideLiner, some patients could not be
`
`successfully treated via interventional means because the cardiologist could not get
`
`a stent where it needed to go. Instead, in these situations the interventional
`
`cardiologist could only balloon the area and hope it did not subsequently constrict,
`
`either acutely or on the long-term. The former problem, called acute vessel closure,
`
`represented a complication, and was associated with a high burden of morbidity
`
`(heart attack and need for emergent coronary artery bypass graft surgery) and
`
`mortality. The latter, called restenosis, was extremely frequent with balloon
`
`dilatation alone (30-50%) and brought significant discomfort (angina, need for
`
`reintervention) for the patient, and added costs for healthcare systems.
`
`
`
`12.
`
`In my experience, GuideLiner has allowed patients to be treated in a
`
`safer and more consistent and reliable manner. Because GuideLiner solved the
`
`long felt need for backup support, it has been commercially and clinically
`
`successful. Indeed, GuideLiner was the first of its kind in a class of products called
`
`“guide extension catheters” and which represent today an indispensable tool in the
`
`interventional cardiologist’s armamentarium. Today, both Boston Scientific and
`
`Medtronic have competing guide extension catheter products, named Guidezilla
`

`
`7 
`
`

`

`and Telescope, respectively, that are very similar to GuideLiner in both structure
`
`and function.
`
`
`
`13.
`
`In my experience today, roughly half of complex PCI cases need a
`
`guide extension catheter. Cases today are much more complex than 10 years ago.
`
`This is due in part because today more people than ever are being treated with
`
`percutaneous (i.e., minimally-invasive) coronary intervention, particularly the
`
`elderly that are not healthy enough to endure open heart surgery, as well as patients
`
`with severe comorbidities (e.g., chronic kidney disease, heart failure, respiratory
`
`insufficiency, etc.).
`
`
`
`14. Further, and importantly, GuideLiner has facilitated and greatly
`
`improved various techniques that are available to interventional cardiologists. As
`
`an example, GuideLiner greatly improves the technique of proximal to distal
`
`stenting, where a series of stents are inserted in which the second (and potentially a
`
`third) stent is inserted at a location more distal than the first stent. In this situation,
`
`GuideLiner greatly reduced the risk of the second stent catching on the first
`
`implanted stent, with the potential to damage it. As another example, the reverse
`
`controlled antegrade and retrograde tracking (“reverse CART”) technique was
`
`initially utilized at most in roughly 5% of cases of chronic total occlusion
`
`percutaneous coronary intervention by a handful of operators worldwide. This was
`
`due to the difficulty of the procedure, which could be accomplished only by very
`

`
`8 
`
`

`

`skilled operators, and represented a big limitation to its widespread adoption.
`
`Today, thanks to the introduction of GuideLiner, this technique has been greatly
`
`streamlined, up to the point that reverse CART nowadays represents the most
`
`common retrograde chronic total occlusion recanalization technique worldwide.
`
`Exhibit 21351 is a journal article published in 2013 that discusses this streamlined
`
`reverse CART technique using GuideLiner. Importantly, GuideLiner has given a
`
`much wider array of operators the possibility to perform such an otherwise
`
`complex technique. For example, I use the technique roughly 70% of the time
`
`during retrograde chronic total occlusion recanalization, because it is so much
`
`easier to manipulate the retrograde guidewire to enter a GuideLiner (advanced to
`
`the mid or distal segment of the occluded coronary artery), compared with having
`
`to advance the wire all the way up to the antegrade guide catheter, having to
`
`traverse a much longer segment of diseased vessel. As another example, use of
`
`GuideLiner in antegrade procedures has greatly increased the efficiency and
`
`success rates of chronic total occlusion revascularization, when the Stingray
`
`system (Boston Scientific) is utilized. The Stingray system is a re-entry device by
`
`which the operator can advance a guidewire from the subintimal space (i.e., within
`
`the vessel wall) into the true lumen, after inadvertent or intentional tracking of the
`
`antegrade wire dissecting through the layers of the vessel wall. Before the
`

`1 Mozid AM et al. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;83(6): 929-32.
`9 
`

`
`

`

`introduction of GuideLiner, Stingray-based re-entry was hard to teach, not very
`
`reproducible, and associated with suboptimal success rates (<50%). Advancing a
`
`GuideLiner all the way to the proximal cap of the chronic total occlusion
`
`minimizes the amount of blood that can enter the vessel wall thus creating a
`
`hematoma and hindering re-entry attempts, which traditionally represented the
`
`biggest limitation of Stingray-based re-entry. With this GuideLiner-assisted
`
`Stingray-based re-entry, success rates of the procedures climbed up to
`
`approximately 80%, which again represents a big advancement for the operators.
`
`Finally, GuideLiner has improved the way imaging dye (contrast) is delivered
`
`during a procedure. GuideLiner allows for selective contrast delivery in which
`
`imaging dye can be delivered in lower amounts (compared with injection from the
`
`guide catheter) to specific, targeted coronary vessels which decreases the toxicity
`
`risks associated with such dyes and also decreases the risk of a potential hydraulic
`
`dissection.
`
`
`
`15.
`
`In my opinion, based on my experience, GuideLiner made cases
`
`possible that were previously impossible, and made cases faster, safer, and more
`
`reliable. My opinion is shared by many others in my field, based on my
`
`professional interactions over the past ten years that the GuideLiner has been
`
`available as an interventional cardiology tool. Further, GuideLiner has empowered
`
`interventional cardiologists to branch out in new ways, making other procedures
`

`
`10 
`
`

`

`more efficient, reliable and safer. So not only was GuideLiner an industry
`
`changing device when it was introduced, it continues to be an enabling technology
`
`even today, more than 10 years after its introduction.
`
`
`
`16. As an example, Exhibit 21362 is a case report we published in 2017 in
`
`which stent delivery through the subintimal space proved to be extremely difficult.
`
`Among other problems, the subadventitial space kept collapsing. GuideLiner was
`
`advanced through a long subadventitial channel to overcome this problem and
`
`allow stent delivery. An extract of the manuscript concludes: “Advancing the
`
`GuideLiner with the stepwise repeated distal-balloon anchoring technique (Figure
`
`4B) was crucial to the delivery of long stents to the distal vessel, thus avoiding
`
`friction and interference by the distorted struts of the long, crushed, occluded
`
`stents”. This is perhaps one of the most remarkable cases I performed with
`
`GuideLiner, but such experience is not just anecdotal, as I use the device in
`
`roughly 40-50% of my complex cases. For example, I recently performed a case
`
`from the radial approach where guide catheter support was suboptimal and
`
`GuideLiner was key for two purposes: first, it allowed me to get selective guide
`
`catheter engagement in the coronary artery, thus allowing to take better pictures of
`
`what I was doing during the intervention; second, it afforded a great amount of
`
`support, which proved key to deliver balloons and stents through a very tight
`

`2 Candilio L et al. J Invasive Cardiol. 2017;29(12): E190-E194.
`11 
`

`
`

`

`stenosis and completing the case without complications and within a short
`
`timeframe. Another remarkable case that I recently performed was one where a
`
`combination of severe calcification and tortuosity in the right coronary artery
`
`would have represented a contraindication for PCI in the pre-GuideLiner era.
`
`Instead, I performed rotational atherectomy, and, after that, GuideLiner was
`
`necessary to allow balloon and stent delivery (the buddy wire technique failed). I
`
`can’t imagine how I would have completed this case otherwise: surely, if it had
`
`been successful, it would have taken a much longer time, exposing the patient to a
`
`significantly higher risk of complications.
`
`
`
`17.
`
`I know that GuideLiner has received much praise and attention in the
`
`interventional cardiology world. For example, a PubMed search with the term
`
`“guideliner” brings at least 99 hits
`
`(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=guideliner&sort=date). This showcases
`
`how this device has become a fundamental tool in the interventional cardiologist’s
`
`armamentarium. Moreover, many operators (including myself) found that when
`
`GuideLiner is used as a first-line strategy during complex interventions (e.g., from
`
`the beginning of the procedure, and not only after encountering challenges with
`
`balloon/stent delivery), the procedure is greatly facilitated and is carried out in a
`
`much more expeditious way.
`

`
`12 
`
`

`

`18.
`
`For my time spent on this matter, I am being compensated at $650 per
`
`hour, which is my standard rate for this type of consulting. The compensation for
`
`my time is not contingent on the results of these or any other legal proceedings.
`
`19.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true,
`
`and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements
`
`and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under
`
`Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`
`Dated: September Z4 , 2020
`
`Dr. Lorenzo Azzalini
`
`13
`
`P
`
`age
`
`15
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2151
`
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`Lorenzo Azzalini
`MD PhD MSc
`
`11832 Park Forest Way
`Glen Allen, VA – 23059 USA
`(cid:72) +1 (347) 330-3246
`(cid:66) azzalini@gmail.com
`
`General data
`Date of birth September 25th, 1981
`Place of birth Venice, Italy
`Citizenship Italian
`U. S.
`Permanent resident
`immigration
`status
`
`July 2020 –
`present
`
`July 2020 –
`present
`
`July 2020 –
`present
`
`January 2018
`– April 2019
`
`November
`2015 – April
`2019
`
`July 2019 –
`June 2020
`
`Current position
`Interventional Cardiologist, VCU Health Pauley Heart Center, Richmond, VA, USA.
`Interventional cardiology faculty position within the Division of Cardiology of the Department of
`Internal Medicine.
`Director of Complex Coronary Interventions, VCU Health Pauley Heart Center, Rich-
`mond, VA, USA.
`I am developing and leading the complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) program. My
`clinical expertise is centered on chronic total occlusion (CTO) PCI, ultra-low contrast volume PCI,
`and PCI with mechanical circulatory support, for all of which I designed and implemented protocols
`and quality monitoring initiatives.
`Associate Professor of Medicine (Cardiology), Virginia Commonwealth University,
`Richmond, VA, USA.
`I am leading several research projects in the field of complex PCI, particularly related to my fields
`of clinical expertise: CTO PCI, ultra-low contrast volume PCI, and PCI with mechanical circulatory
`support.
`Past appointments
`Co-Director, Chronic Total Occlusion Program, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
`I led the chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention program together with world
`expert Mauro Carlino.
`Consultant in Interventional Cardiology, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
`I was part of the group of interventionalists led by Dr. Antonio Colombo. I focused on complex and
`high-risk coronary interventions (in particular, chronic total occlusions). I also performed structural
`heart disease interventions (mainly TAVI).
`Education and Training
`Fellow in Interventional Cardiology (Research/Clinical), The Mount Sinai Hospital,
`New York, NY, USA.
`I was involved in the complex percutaneous coronary intervention program.
`research projects related to this subspecialty.
`
`I also led several
`
`

`

`November
`2013 –
`November
`2015
`
`November
`2012 – April
`2015
`
`November
`2008 – July
`2012
`
`May 2008 –
`May 2013
`
`March 2007 –
`April 2008
`
`August 2006 –
`February
`2007
`October 2000
`– July 2006
`
`Fellow in Interventional Cardiology, Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada.
`After 6 months completely dedicated to clinical research, in which I designed and led several original
`studies in the field of coronary artery and structural heart disease, I trained in percutaneous coronary
`interventions and structural heart disease interventions for 18 months. During my senior year
`(2015), I served as Chief Fellow.
`PhD in Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
`My thesis is titled: ’Anatomic validation and clinical usefulness of multidetector computed tomo-
`graphy for the optimization of percutaneous treatment of severe aortic stenosis with transcatheter
`aortic valve implantation’. My work was supervised by Prof. Francesc Carreras, MD, PhD.
`MSc in Research Methodology: Design and Statistics in Health Sciences, Univer-
`sitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
`I have obtained a Master of Science degree in biostatistics and research methodology. The core
`curriculum encompasses the foundations of statistics applied to biomedical sciences, linear and
`logistic regression, Cox proportional hazards model, survival analysis, and their applications in
`experimental, cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies, and meta-analyses.
`Resident in Cardiology, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
`I
`Resident in Cardiology in a tertiary hospital in Barcelona, attending 1.5 million inhabitants.
`was exposed daily to complex patients with acute coronary syndrome and chronic ischemic heart
`disease, advanced acute and chronic heart failure, arrhythmias, valvulopathies, and heart transplant
`patients, either in clinical ward, emergency department, step-down unit and cardiac intensive care
`unit. During my senior year (2012-2013), I served as Chief Resident.
`Research Fellow, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red – Enfermedades Hepáticas
`y Digestivas (CIBERehd) & Institut D’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer
`(IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.
`I worked in the Hepatic Fibrosis laboratory, under the supervision of Dr. Ramón Bataller, MD, PhD.
`I studied the effects of cigarette smoking as a potential predisposing factor for disease progression
`in obese rats with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD).
`Senior House Officer, First Medical Division, Policlinico Universitario, Padua, Italy.
`I was responsible for daily ward rounds and I regularly took part in emergency room shifts.
`
`MD Degree, University of Padua Medical School, Padua, Italy.
`Grade: 110/110 cum laude
`Licenses
`2020 Virginia Board of Medicine, VA (USA) – Physician license #0101269046.
`Valid through September 30, 2022.
`2018 New York State Education Department, NY (USA) – Physician license #296137.
`Valid through August 31, 2021.
`2015 Ordine Provinciale dei Medici Chirurghi e degli Odontoiatri (OMCeO) di Milano,
`Italy – Physician license #44198.
`Valid through December 31, 2020.
`2013 Collège des Médecines du Québec (CMQ), QC (Canada) – Physician (limited) license
`#R19913.
`Registered between 2013 and 2016.
`2008 Col.legi Oficial de Metges de Barcelona (COMB), Spain – Physician license #43153.
`Registered between 2008 and 2013.
`Certifications
`
`

`

`2017 EAPCI Certificate of Excellence, European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular
`Interventions.
`I successfully undertook the EAPCI Learning Programme on the ESCeL platform and was awarded
`the EAPCI Certificate of Excellence on October 23, 2017.
`2016 MCCEE, Medical Council of Canada Evaluating Examination.
`MCCEE score: 316/pass. I passed the MCCEE on September 6, 2016.
`2013 ESC General Cardiology Exam, European Knowledge Assessment in Cardiovascular
`Medicine.
`Certified by the European Society of Cardiology.
`2013 USMLE Step 3, United States Medical Licensing Examination.
`Step 3 score: 225/pass (upon first attempt). I passed the USMLE Step 3 on February 12, 2013.
`2010 ECFMG certificate, United States Medical Licensing Examination.
`Step 1 score: 95/229 (upon first attempt). Step 2 CK score: 98/236 (upon first attempt). Step 2
`CS: pass (upon first attempt). I got my ECFMG certification on October 13th, 2010.
`2008 Spanish board (MIR) exam, Spanish board examination to apply for residency.
`Score: 98th percentile
`2007 Italian MD license, University of Padua Medical School, Padua, Italy.
`Awards & Grants
`(cid:123) Finalist at the 2018 Thomas J. Linnemeier Spirit of Interventional Cardiology Young
`Investigator Award.
`I was chosen as a finalist in this contest (sponsored by Cardio-
`vascular Research Foundation and presented during the Transcatheter Cardiovascular
`Therapeutics congress), which rewards the best clinician-scientists and leaders in the
`field of interventional cardiology. I was chosen as one of the four finalists after a selection
`of dozens of applications from all over the world.
`(cid:123) Top 4 abstracts at TCT 2016 (out of 1749 submissions): ‘Outcomes of chronic total
`occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention according to dissection/re-entry versus
`wire escalation techniques’.
`(cid:123) Top 8 abstracts at EuroPCR 2015 (out of 1183 submissions): ‘The benefits conferred
`by radial access for cardiac catheterisation are offset by a paradoxical increase in the
`rate of vascular access site complications with femoral access: the radial paradox’. My
`abstract was featured at the ‘PCR’s got talent!’ session.
`(cid:123) Montreal Live Symposium 2015 Fellow Poster Competition. Second prize.
`(cid:123) Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Fall Fellows Course
`2014 Fellow Case Competition. First prize.
`(cid:123) Montreal Live Symposium 2014 Fellow Poster Competition. Third prize.
`(cid:123) Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT) congress 2013, Montreal, QC,
`Canada: third prize at the SIEMENS Outstanding Academic Research (SOAR) Award.
`(cid:123) Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) congress 2013, Chicago, IL, USA:
`Certificate of merit.
`(cid:123) Spanish Society of Cardiology (SEC) 2013 grant for a one-year training period at the
`Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada.
`(cid:123) European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) congress 2008, Milan, Italy:
`grant for young investigators.
`(cid:123) Rolf Olsson Symposium 2007, Gothenburg, Sweden: special prize for foreign invited
`speakers.
`
`

`

`2015 –
`present
`
`2015 –
`present
`
`2018 –
`present
`
`(cid:123) Sub-internship in Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General
`Hospital, Boston, MA, USA (2006): grade: honors.
`(cid:123) United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW) congress 2006, Berlin, Germany:
`grant for young investigators.
`(cid:123) Harvard Medical School grant for foreign medical students (2005). Observership in
`Internal Medicine at the Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital,
`Boston, MA, USA.
`(cid:123) University of Padua Medical School special grant for elective clerkship in the USA (2005).
`(cid:123) Socrates-Erasmus exchange student (2005).
`I was chosen to spend my fifth year of
`medical school at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, within the
`European Union Socrates-Erasmus Mobility Program.
`Research interests
`Chronic total occlusion (CTO).
`I have developed observational studies in the field of percutaneous revascularization of CTO. I
`am also interested in investigating new techniques to improve the efficacy and effectiveness of
`percutaneous revascularization of this challenging lesion subset.
`Contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI).
`I am interested in developing risk prediction models for CI-AKI, as well as strategies to decrease
`the incidence of this condition.
`Complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
`I am interested in characterizing the outcomes of patients undergoing complex PCI as well as the
`technical aspects of specific devices and approaches used in complex PCI.
`Vascular access.
`I developed research projects on the outcomes and complications of radial and femoral access for
`cardiac catheterization and intervention.
`2014 – 2016 Bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS).
`I investigated on the incidence and mechanisms of BRS thrombosis in an all-comer patient
`population, and on the role of BRS in chronic total occlusions.
`Study leadership
`Zero-CI-AKI strategy, PI.
`Evaluation of the feasibility, safety and efficacy of an ultra-low-contrast-volume PCI strategy in
`patients with chronic kidney disease.
`2017 – 2018 Safety of ioversol during PCI, PI.
`Analysis of the safety of ioversol in comparison with other low-osmolar and iso-osmolar contrast
`media for PCI.
`2016 – 2018 REPEAT-FFR, Co-PI.
`Evaluation of the role of post-PCI fractional flow reserve (FFR) on decision-making to optimize
`patient outcomes.
`Peer–reviewed research articles
`Total number of publications: 147 (already indexed in PubMed: 144; in press: 3. Number of publications
`as first author: 73 (50% of total). h-index: 21.
`
`2019 –
`present
`
`2014 –
`present
`
`Original articles (n=71)
`(cid:123) Orlando R, Azzalini L, Orando S, Lirussi F. Bile acids for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
`and/or steatohepatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jul 9;7:CD005160.
`
`

`

`(cid:123) Moroni F, Spangaro A, Carlino M, Baber U, Brilakis ES, Azzalini L. Impact of renal
`function on the immediate and long-term outcomes of percutaneous recanalization of
`coronary chronic total occlusions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol.
`2020 May 25:S0167-5273(20)32041-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.05.067. Online ahead
`of print.
`(cid:123) Azzalini L, Baber U, Johal GS, Farhan S, Barman N, Kapur V, Hasan C, Vijay P, Jhaveri
`V, Mehran R, Kini AS, Sharma SK. One-year outcomes of patients undergoing com-
`plex percutaneous coronary intervention with three contemporary drug-eluting stents.
`Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Jun 1. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28996.
`(cid:123) Azzalini L, Alaswad K, Uretsky BF, Agostoni P, Galassi AR, Harada Ribeiro M, Filho
`EM, Morales-Victorino N, Attallah A, Gupta A, Zivelonghi C, Montorfano M, Bellini B,
`Carlino M. Multicenter experience with the antegrade fenestration and reentry technique
`for chronic total occlusion recanalization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Apr 22. doi:
`10.1002/ccd.28941. [Epub ahead of print]
`(cid:123) Azzalini L, Johal GS, Baber U, Bander J, Moreno PR, Bazi L, Kapur V, Barman N, Kini
`AS, Sharma SK. Outcomes of Impella-supported high-risk nonemergent percutaneous
`coronary intervention in a large single-center registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020
`Apr 25. doi: 10.1002/ccd.28931.
`(cid:123) Pinto G, Fragasso G, Gemma M, Bertoldi L, Salerno A, Godino C, Colombo A, Az

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