`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. Craig Thompson
`
`I, Dr. Craig Thompson, 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 29, 2020, attached
`
`hereto as Appendix A, remain true and correct, and I hereby adopt and submit
`
`

`

`them in connection with the following IPRs before the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board: IPR2020-01341, IPR2020-01342, IPR2020-01343, and IPR2020-01344.
`
`For my time spent on this matter, I am being compensated at $500 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.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my knowledge are true, and that
`
`all statements made on information and believe 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 Sates Code.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 10, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Craig Thompson, MD/
`
`Dr. Craig Thompson
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. Craig Thompson
`
`I, Dr. Craig Thompson, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a board certified interventional cardiologist, and have been
`
`practicing as such for over 17 years. I received my medical degree from the
`
`University of Mississippi in 1995, completed my residency in internal medicine in
`
`1
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`

`

`1998 at the University of Mississippi School of Medicine, and completed three
`
`fellowships over the following five years, the last of which was in interventional
`
`cardiology at the Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School.
`
`Today I am the Director of Interventional Cardiology at NYU Langone Health, the
`
`Lead at the NYU Langone Health System Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories,
`
`the Director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at Tisch Hospital, and a
`
`Professor of interventional cardiology at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.
`
`A copy of my CV is attached to this declaration as Exhibit A.
`
`2.
`
`In my 17 plus year career as a practicing interventional cardiologist, I
`
`have conducted over ten thousand catheter procedures. I am very familiar with
`
`guide extension catheters and have used them in over two thousand interventional
`
`cardiology procedures. Guide extension catheters, and particularly GuideLiner as
`
`the first product of its kind, have become an indispensable tool for interventional
`
`cardiologists such as myself who perform complex percutaneous coronary
`
`interventions (commonly known as “complex PCI”).
`
`3.
`
`Guide extension catheters are not used in every interventional
`
`cardiology procedure. Rather, guide extension catheters are typically used in the
`
`more difficult procedures where the problem has always been getting enough
`
`support when pushing equipment like stents and balloons through tortuous
`
`anatomy and/or difficult lesions within the coronary vasculature. This problem of
`
`2
`
`

`

`insufficient backup support existed for a long time in the practice of interventional
`
`cardiology, and I became aware of the problem at least as early as the mid 1990’s
`
`when I was embarking on my residency and fellowships.
`
`4.
`
`In procedures where the anatomy is difficult to navigate, usually
`
`because of the tortuosity of the anatomy and/or plaque buildup and/or calcification,
`
`the first problem that is typically encountered in the procedure is that the guide
`
`catheter, through which stents and/or balloons are being pushed into the
`
`vasculature, backs out of and migrates away from the ostium of the coronary artery
`
`of interest.
`
`5.
`
`Once the guide catheter backs out, advancement of treatment devices
`
`such as balloons and stents into the coronary artery of interest is impeded. If
`
`treatment cannot be completed using PCI at that time, then the patient either has to
`
`come back at a later date to try again, the patient has to go to open heart surgery
`
`(such as bypass surgery), or the patient is not able to be treated, which can be life
`
`threatening.
`
`6.
`
`This problem of guide catheter backout is even more pronounced
`
`because, in most cases, the physician does not know whether he or she is going to
`
`encounter guide catheter backout until well into the procedure. In this regard, it is
`
`important to note that while a lot of planning goes into interventional cardiology
`
`procedures, the procedures are ultimately performed somewhat blind, with only
`
`3
`
`

`

`fluoroscopic x-ray imaging used with dye contrast to help navigate from the
`
`entrance point (typically the femoral artery in one’s leg or radial artery in one’s
`
`wrist). In this typical case, guide catheter backout would not happen until a lot of
`
`work has been completed by the physician to get the guidewire in place at the
`
`location of the lesion in a coronary artery. It is not until the guidewire is in place
`
`that a stent or balloon would be advanced and if the anatomy is more tortuous than
`
`expected, more plaque filled, or simply more constrictive than expected, the guide
`
`catheter would backout.
`
`7. When it was introduced in 2009, the GuideLiner product was a new
`
`and different type of medical equipment that was not previously available.
`
`GuideLiner was the first product on the market that we today refer to as a “guide
`
`extension catheter.”1 GuideLiner was a transformational and enabling device that
`
`allowed for better and more predictable treatment of patients, and also allowed for
`
` 
`1 As will be discussed below, prior to GuideLiner there was a technique known as
`
`“mother-and-child” that involved introducing a smaller full-length guide catheter
`
`into a larger guide catheter. While looking back in hindsight one might consider
`
`the child catheter used in that technique to be a “guide extension catheter,” the
`
`technique was not widely adopted and I am not aware of that terminology being
`
`used for the mother-and-child.
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`

`treatment of patients in ways that could not have been performed before its
`
`introduction.
`
`8.
`
`Subsequent to the introduction of GuideLiner, two other guide
`
`extension catheters have been introduced in the U.S. as direct competitors of
`
`GuideLiner (Guidezilla from Boston Scientific and, more recently, Telescope from
`
`Medtronic). While there are relatively minor differences between those devices
`
`that might affect a particular doctor’s preference, those differences are far
`
`outweighed by the similarities they share as guide extension catheters, which have
`
`become an important tool in the interventional cardiologist’s toolbox.
`
`9.
`
`GuideLiner was a major improvement to the various work-arounds
`
`that were attempted prior to its advent to address the guide catheter backout / lack
`
`of backup support problem. Not only were these prior work-arounds not as
`
`successful in their own right, there was greater variability among operators (i.e.
`
`physicians). I will describe these work-arounds in more detail below.
`
`10. Before the advent of GuideLiner, physicians, including myself, spent
`
`a lot of time trying to work around the guide catheter backout problem. One
`
`attempted work around was to try several different guide catheters. Over 40 plus
`
`types of guide catheters were available, each type having a unique combination of
`
`diameter, stiffness, and preset curved shape. Oftentimes, I may have had to try
`
`four or more different types of guide catheters before finding one that might work.
`
`5
`
`

`

`11. Sometimes it was impossible to find a guide catheter that would not
`
`backout. And in the situations where a different guide catheter was finally found
`
`to work, this process of switching out multiple guide catheters was inefficient and
`
`not a good solution. Sometimes it was even more problematic, because the more
`
`times you insert guide catheters into the anatomy and into the coronary ostia, the
`
`greater the risk for possible dissection or injury to the vessel walls. While guide
`
`catheters are designed to have a smooth outer surface, the vasculature is sensitive
`
`and the more times equipment such as a guide catheter are passed through the
`
`vasculature and rub on the vessel walls, the walls get irritated and may want to
`
`constrict.
`
`12. This process of trying a number of different guide catheters also
`
`risked losing position of the guidewire, which again would require more work to
`
`be redone to regain that position, if possible. Again, the multiple attempts to insert
`
`and withdraw a number of devices into the vasculature can cause the vasculature to
`
`react in ways that may make repositioning of the guidewire extremely difficult, if
`
`not impossible. Without proper guidewire positioning, intravascular treatment
`
`cannot be completed.
`
`13. Further, the process of trying a number of different guide catheters
`
`was also problematic because it took additional time during the procedure, which
`
`6
`
`

`

`results in further risks to the patient from increased exposure to fluoroscopic
`
`imaging dye, x-ray radiation, and increased usage of sedative drugs.
`
`14. A second technique physicians, including myself, tried before the
`
`advent of GuideLiner to attempt to work around the guide catheter backout issue
`
`was to “deep seat” or “deep throat” the guide catheter’s distal end into the coronary
`
`artery. This technique was not preferred as it posed even greater risk of injuring
`
`the coronary vessel walls and/or creating a dissection of the artery, both of which
`
`could be life threatening to the patient. Often times, the anatomy would not allow
`
`for a proper fit such that the deep seat or deep throat method was not an acceptable
`
`solution, particularly given the associated risks of such a technique.
`
`15. A third technique physicians, including myself, tried before the advent
`
`of GuideLiner to attempt to work around the guide catheter backout issue was the
`
`“buddy wire” technique, which is where a second guidewire is inserted and this
`
`second guidewire is used to try to give support to the guide catheter and lessen
`
`sharp angles in an artery in an attempt to facilitate the physician’s pushing of the
`
`stent or balloon through and past the difficult anatomy. While this technique
`
`sometimes worked, it was not successful in the more difficult cases as the
`
`additional wire was not sufficient to provide the requisite support. This technique
`
`also had some significant risks, one of which is a phenomenon called “wire wrap”
`
`where the guidewires and equipment inside the vessel actually get entangled with
`
`7
`
`

`

`one another. There are risks when this situation arises, even if the equipment can
`
`be untangled, it takes time and can require much of the procedure to be redone.
`
`16. A fourth technique described in the literature (and used by a few
`
`physicians) before the advent of GuideLiner to attempt to work around the guide
`
`catheter backout issue was to use a smaller, full-length guide catheter inside
`
`another full-length guide catheter. This technique was referred to as the “mother-
`
`and-child” approach. I became aware of this approach early in my career, around
`
`2003. The mother-and-child approach was rarely, if at all, used by interventional
`
`cardiologists for a number of reasons. First, because a full-length child catheter
`
`had to be used, and in particular a full-length child catheter that was longer than
`
`the full-length guide catheter, the overall equipment being used was long and
`
`cumbersome, and was not easy to advance and manipulate. This difficulty is
`
`augmented by the need to manipulate two hemostasis valves, one at the end of each
`
`guide catheter, during a procedure. Second, and importantly, given the length of
`
`the child catheter that would need to be used, a longer guidewire was necessary.
`
`The typical guidewire length used in interventional cardiology procedures, which
`
`is generally referred to as a “standard (or exchange) length guidewire” is 180-190
`
`cm. This length wire is highly desirable because it can be managed by a single
`
`operator. The inner full-length guide catheter used in the mother-and-child
`
`8
`
`

`

`approach was too long to use this standard length guidewire, and instead
`
`necessitated that a longer 300 cm guidewire be used.
`
`17. Because a longer 300 cm guidewire had to be used with the mother-
`
`and-child approach, two operators (i.e. two physicians, or a physician along with a
`
`technician or nurse) were necessary to advance and remove treatment devices
`
`during the procedure. This was problematic because this results in two people
`
`needing to work synchronously together, which, regardless of the skill level,
`
`results in potential coordination problems, miscommunication, and less predictable
`
`treatment.
`
`18. Further, the necessity to use a longer 300 cm guidewire in connection
`
`with the mother-and-child approach added more time to the procedure because in
`
`the typical case, the physician starts with the shorter length wire. As discussed
`
`above, a physician typically does not know whether he or she needs additional
`
`support for the guide catheter at the start of the procedure, so if tortious anatomy or
`
`a tough lesion is encountered and the physician wanted to try the mother-and-child
`
`approach, then the physician would need to pull out the then-current exchange
`
`length guidewire and switch to the longer 300 cm wire. Switching out the
`
`guidewire for a longer wire is highly undesirable because it risks losing the
`
`guidewire position inside the coronary anatomy. As discussed above, positioning
`
`of the guidewire is an extremely important step in an interventional cardiology
`
`9
`
`

`

`procedure. So once the desired position of the wire is obtained, the physician does
`
`not want to lose that position until the procedure is complete. Also, loss or
`
`replacement of the guidewire position takes further time, which results in greater
`
`risk to the patient from fluoroscopic imaging dyes, x-ray radiation, and sedation
`
`drugs. Also, the longer the procedure takes, and the more times equipment are put
`
`in and pulled out of the vasculature risks the vessels becoming aggravated and
`
`constricting.
`
`19. So while the mother-and-child approach was a work-around technique
`
`that was described in the literature, it was not a good solution to the guide catheter
`
`backout problem because of these many issues, and because of this, it was never
`
`adopted as an acceptable solution that interventional cardiologist used.
`
`20. When the GuideLiner product first came out in 2009, it gave
`
`physicians a completely new solution for difficult interventional cardiology cases.
`
`Almost immediately, the GuideLiner became an indispensable part of the tools I
`
`used to treat complex cardiac lesions.
`
`21. There was much industry praise for GuideLiner after it became
`
`available, both from physicians and the broader medical community. I recall
`
`GuideLiner being discussed extensively at industry conferences after its release,
`
`the first of which I believe was the CTO Summit in February 2010, which is one of
`
`the most important interventional cardiology conferences in the world. I have also,
`
`10
`
`

`

`on numerous occasions, personally discussed and directed discussions regarding
`
`the great benefits of GuideLiner with other physicians—GuideLiner fundamentally
`
`changed the way patients were treated. Once GuideLiner became available,
`
`interventional cardiologists, and particularly interventional cardiologist that work
`
`on the most complex cases, immediately began using the device in their practices
`
`and the number of times I have had discussions with physicians about the benefits
`
`that GuideLiner provides is too numerous to count.
`
`22. The success of GuideLiner was due to its structure that provided
`
`important functional benefits. The rapid exchange-like nature of GuideLiner, with
`
`the pushrod structure and distal tubular structure, allowed me and my colleagues to
`
`safely extend into the coronary arteries using a standard length guidewire typically
`
`used in interventional cardiology procedures. The side opening located at the
`
`junction of the pushrod and distal tubular structure facilitated smooth entry of
`
`devices into the distal tubular structure while it was disposed deep inside a guide
`
`catheter. And the fact that GuideLiner provided a delivery lumen that was very
`
`close in dimension to that of the guide catheter gave us a device that elegantly
`
`solved the back-up support problem but did not take up the very limited guide
`
`catheter real estate and allowed for standard stents and balloons to still be delivered
`
`deep within the coronary vasculature. Boston Scientific’s Guidezilla product and
`
`11
`
`

`

`Medtronic’s Telescope product both incorporated these structural features into
`
`their designs.
`
`23. The GuideLiner products allowed me and my colleagues to treat
`
`patients who otherwise would have been untreatable with a catheter procedure.
`
`The GuideLiner products also allowed me and my colleagues to treat patients in a
`
`safer, more consistent, more predictable, reliable, and faster way which is highly
`
`beneficial from a care standpoint. The GuideLiner not only achieved better
`
`treatment for patients, it achieves more reproduceable results between different
`
`physicians which is also very important from a care standpoint.
`
`24. GuideLiner gave physicians a device that can be used in virtually all
`
`circumstances, and on a moment’s notice in the middle of a coronary interventional
`
`procedure, without the need to pull out the prepositioned guidewire. This is was an
`
`important benefit GuideLiner provided because interventional cardiology
`
`procedures are highly individualized based on the patient’s unique anatomy and
`
`clinical situation. GuideLiner, which can be employed at any point in a coronary
`
`intervention, allows physicians to adapt to the circumstances of a particular case.
`
`25. The fact that GuideLiner could be used with only one operator was
`
`also highly beneficial. While catheterization lab technicians can be very skilled,
`
`their hands are not nearly as good as a trained interventional cardiologist. The
`
`ability of a single interventional cardiologist to hold the guidewire in place and
`
`12
`
`

`

`manipulate GuideLiner into the coronary arteries was very important. GuideLiner
`
`allowed me to complete the procedure without the need to rely on a second set of
`
`hands. Ultimately this results in much more consistent treatment for patients.
`
`26. For the reasons discussed above, guide extension catheters (originally
`
`just GuideLiner and now including Guidezilla and Telescope) became and remain
`
`today an important and valuable device for interventional cardiologists, and have
`
`really proven to be a highly successful product. While guide extension catheters
`
`are not used in all interventional cardiology procedures, in the most complex cases
`
`it has been a tremendous advancement in technology.
`
`27. There is no question that GuideLiner fulfilled a long felt need in the
`
`interventional cardiology space for a device that could adequately solve the
`
`problem of guide catheter backout and lack of support. It is because GuideLiner
`
`fulfilled this long felt need that GuideLiner and the subsequently-introduced
`
`competitive devices have been so commercially successful.
`
`28.
`
`I recall innumerable cases over the years in which guide extension
`
`catheters have “saved the day” for my patients and given me options as the lead
`
`surgeon and responsible party for providing a safe and successful result. In fact,
`
`this week I was caring for a 60 year old female, mother of two, grandmother of 3,
`
`who had accelerating angina and eventually was found to have complex coronary
`
`disease, tortuosity in her arteries, and blockages that needed repair for her quality
`
`13
`
`

`

`of life and longevity. Ultimately the procedure was successful using guide
`
`extension technology to deliver and deploy therapeutic devices. The very next
`
`procedure was that of a man in his 70s, limited by shortness of breath, who had
`
`prior coronary surgery and no other options aside from stents. We successfully
`
`opened a chronic total occlusion and delivered stents and restored blood flow using
`
`modified techniques that are enabled with guide extension technology. This is
`
`merely one morning this past week. Guide extension catheters, which GuideLiner
`
`created the market for in 2009, add value daily.
`
`29. After the introduction of GuideLiner, interventional cardiologists,
`
`including myself, were more willing to take on more complicated cases (instead of
`
`recommending the patient for open-heart surgery or non-treatment) because these
`
`cases could be performed in a safer and more successful manner. For example,
`
`GuideLiner was a game changer for how interventional cardiologists, including
`
`myself, approach cases of chronic total occlusion (i.e., a sustained total blockage of
`
`a vessel). GuideLiner has allowed us to deliver stents and equipment, to facilitate
`
`gaining “control” of the artery by providing a point to cross a blockage with
`
`guidewire technologies etc. Guide extension catheters have been a “game
`
`changer” in the extremely complex coronary interventional space.
`
`14
`
`

`

`30.
`
`For my time spent on this matter, I am being compensated at $500 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.
`
`31.
`
`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 2?,2020
`
`Mw “2
`
`Dr. Cr g Thompson
`
`15
`
`Page 17
`
`Teleflex Ex. 2215
`Medtronic v. Teleflex
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Additional Information
`
`
`Curriculum Vitae
`
`Date Prepared: May 28, 2020
`
`
`CRAIG A. THOMPSON, M.D., MMSc.
`
`Contact Information
`
`Home address: 626 First Avenue, W.45H, New York, NY 10016
`Office address: 550 First Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10016
`Work phone: 212-263-5656
`Cell phone: 802-369-6250
`Email address: craig.a.thompson99@gmail.com
`
`Place of birth: Vicksburg, MS USA
`
`
`Current Appointments and Leadership Positions
`
`
`Administrative Leadership Positions
`
`
`09//2018
`09/2018
`09/2018
`
`Director, Interventional Cardiology, NYU Langone Health
`Director, Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories, NYU Tisch Hospital
`Lead, Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories, NYU Health System
`
`
`
`Education and Training
`
`Education
`
`1987
`1991
`1994
`1998
`
`
`
`
`Postdoctoral Training
`
`
`06/1995-06/1996
`07/1996-06/1998
`06/1998-06/2001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate
`BS
`
`MD
`
`MMSc
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Biology
`Medicine
`Biostatistics/
`Clinical
`Investigation
`
`Vicksburg, MS
`
`
`Porters Chapel Academy
`Hattiesburg, MS
`University of Southern Mississippi
`Jackson, MS
`University of Mississippi
`
`Harvard Medical School/
` Cambridge, MA
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology
`
`Intern, Internal Medicine, University of Mississippi School of Medicine, Jackson, MS
`Resident, Internal Medicine, University of Mississippi School of Medicine, Jackson, MS
`Fellow, Cardiovascular Diseases, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School,
`Boston, MA
`
`1
`
`

`

`07/2001-06/2003
`
`07/2001-05/2003
`
`Fellow, Interventional Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, Massachusetts General
`Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
`Fellow, Clinical Investigators Training Program, Harvard Medical School/Massachusetts Institute
`of Technology, Cambridge, MA
`
`American Board of Internal Medicine, Internal Medicine
`American Board of Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Diseases
`American Board of Internal Medicine, Interventional Cardiology
`American Board of Vascular Medicine, Vascular Medicine
`American Board of Vascular Medicine, Endovascular Medicine
`
`
`Mississippi
`
`Massachusetts
`New Hampshire
`Connecticut
`
`United Kingdom
`Georgia
`
`New York
`
`
`#15443
`#156713
`#12124
`#047324
`#5048546
`#066655
`#267395
`
`
`Specialty Certification
`
`1998
`2001
`2003
`2003
`2003
`
`Licensure
`
`
`1997
`1998
`2003
`2009
`2009
`2011
`2012
`
`
`Previous Appointments and Leadership Positions
`
`Faculty Academic Appointments
`07/2003-01/2009
`Assistant Professor, Tenure-Eligible, Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH
`02/2009-12/2013
`Associate Professor, Tenure-Eligible, Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven,
`CT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hospital Appointments
`
`07/2003-01/2009
`07/2005-01/2009
`02/2009-12/2013
`06/2009-12/2013
`
`Attending Physician, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH
`Attending Physician, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH
`Attending Physician, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT
`Consultant (Hon) University College, London and London Chest Hospitals, London, United
`Kingdom
`
`
`Administrative Leadership Positions
`
`01/2014-12/31/2017
`
`Senior Vice President and Global Chief Medical Officer, Interventional Cardiology,
`Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, MA/Maple Grove, MN
`Director, Peripheral Vascular Medicine, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH
`Director, Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon,
`NH
`Director, Invasive Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT
`Executive Director, Yale-University College London Collaborative (Interventional Cardiology),
`New Haven, CT and London, UK
`
`2
`
`07/2003-01/2009
`07/2005-01/2009
`
`02/2009-12/2013
`02/2009-12/2013
`
`
`
`

`

`06/2009-12/2013
`
`Consultant (Hon) University College, London and London Chest Hospitals, London, United
`Kingdom
`
`
`
`
`Other Professional Positions
`
`07/2001-06/2003
`
`07/2003-01/2009
`
`07/2003-01/2009
`
`07/2003-01/2009
`
`07/2003-01/2009
`
`07/2003-01/2009
`07/2003-01/2009
`
`02/2009-12/2013
`
`02/2009-12/2013
`02/2009-12/2013
`
`02/2009-12/2013
`
`Member, Endovascular Devices Team, Center for Integration of Medicine and Minimally Invasive
`Technology, Boston, MA
`Member, Clinical Cardiology Fellowship Selection Committee, Dartmouth Medical School,
`Lebanon, NH
`Member, Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Selection Committee, Dartmouth Medical School,
`Lebanon, NH
`Member, Endovascular Medicine Steering Committee, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center,
`Lebanon, NH
`Member, Vascular Medicine Steering Committee, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center,
`Lebanon, NH
`Member, Thoracic Aortic Center, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH
`Member, Tertiary-Quaternary Strategic Task Force, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center,
`Lebanon, NH
`Member, Heart and Vascular Center Quality and Leadership Council, Yale New Haven Hospital,
`New Haven, CT
`Member, Door-to-Balloon Time/AMI Committee, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT
`Member, Heart and Vascular Center Senior Operations Council, Yale New Haven Hospital, New
`Haven, CT
`Member, Heart and Vascular Center Formulary Committee, Yale New Haven Hospital, New
`Haven, CT
`Senior Vice President, Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, MA
`Senior Staff, Cardiology, Boston Scientific Corporation, Maple Grove, MN
`Business Planning Team, Cardiology, Boston Scientific Corporation, Maple Grove, MN
`
`01/2014-/0/2018
`01/2014-/0/2018
`01/2014-/0/2018
`
`Awards, Honors, and Memberships in Honorary Societies
`
`Internal
` None
`
`External
`
`1987-1991
`
`
`
`
`
`University of Southern Mississippi:
`University of Southern Mississippi Hall of Fame
`Omicron Delta Kappa Five Outstanding Freshmen
`All-Independent Scholar-Athlete (Varsity Football)
`President's List
`Dean's List
`Alpha Lambda Delta Honor Society
`Phi Eta Sigma Honor Society
`Beta Beta Beta Honor Society
`Mr. Delta Tau Delta (1989, 1990, 1991)
`ACT Scholarship
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Tommy Wilson, Jr. Memorial Scholarship
`Aubrey K. Lucas Leadership Scholarship
`University of Southern Mississippi Salutatorian Scholarship
`University of Southern Mississippi STAR Student Scholarship
`Omega Psi Phi Honorary
`
` William Randolph Hurst Fellow in Cardiovascular Medicine, Lown Cardiovascular
` Research Foundation, Brookline, MA
`
`
`Harvard/Massachusetts Institute of Technology Clinical Investigators Training Program,
`Cambridge, MA
`
`1998-2000
`
` 2000-2003
`
` Dartmouth Excellence in Teaching Award, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center
`
` 2005-2006
`
` Cardiology Fellowship Teacher of the Year, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center
`
`
` 2006
`
`
`
`
`Research Activity
`
`Research Activities
`
`Major Research Interests include:
`1.
`Innovations in Complex Coronary Intervention
`2. Percutaneous Therapy for Chronic Total Occlusion
`3. Device/Therapy Development to address unmet needs in cardiovascular diseases
`Work in these areas has redefined global standard of care in chronic total occlusion (HYBRID CTO PCI, device and
`procedure development) and innovation for cardiac, peripheral vascular, structure cardiovascular illnesses.
`
`Grant History
`
`Grants and Clinical Trials
`
`Past:
`1. Society of Cardiac Angiography and Interventions/American College of Cardiology FY 08-09. “Vascular
`Interventional Training Program”. Role: Program Director ($50,000/year; direct costs)
`2. Abbott Vascular FY 08-09. “Vascular Interventional Training Program”. Role: Program Director
`($75,000/year, direct costs)
`
`3. Cordis FY 07-08. “Vascular Interventional Training Program”. Role: Program Director ($35,000/year;
`direct costs)
`
`4. Boston Scientific FY 07-08. “Vascular Interventional Training Program”. Role: Program Director
`($50,000/year, direct costs)
`
`5. Cordis FY 06-07. “Vascular Interventional Training Program”. Role: Program Director($35,000/year;
`direct costs)
`
`6. Boston Scientific FY 06-07. “Vascular Interventional Training Program”. Role: Program Director
`($50,000/year, direct costs)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`7. Guidant FY 06-07. “Vascular Interventional Training Program”. Role: Program Director ($50,000/year,
`direct costs)
`
`8. Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center – Cardiology Section FY04-05. “Renal Artery stenosis Invasive
`Doppler (RAIDER) clinical trial”. Role: Principal Investigator ($20,000/year; direct costs)
`
`9. Percardia, Inc. (unrestricted grant) FY 04. “Percutaneous Ventricle to Coronary Bypass”. Role: Principal
`Investigator ($50,000/year direct costs)
`
`10. Center for Integration of Medicine and Minimally Invasive Technology (CIMIT) FY 03-009 FY 03.
`“Percutaneous myocyte replacement for congestive heart failure”. Role: Co- Principal Investigator
`($150,000 Direct Costs, 1 Year)
`
`11. Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals FY 03. “Percutaneous Cellular
`Cardiomyoplasty”. Role: Post doctoral research fellow ($60,000/year; Direct costs)
`
`12. Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals FY 02. “Percutaneous Cellular
`Cardiomyoplasty”. Role: Post doctoral research fellow ($60,000/year; Direct