Thank you both for the posts I shall hope for some rain this weekend so I can get to this stuff. It seems to this layman that reliability and small size trump CF vs Pusatile issues at this stage on the technical front for the DT mkt.
However, if -- and a big if -- THOR does not field a smaller bearingless PF device and leaves Novacor II as the sole bearer, then WHRT should soar.
Zenith has not demonstrated one paper declaring CF more efficacious. Yet I've posted numerous papers declaring PF more efficacious with regard to specific issues -- not the least of which came from Texas Heart Institute.
Not to belabor this further, but the point is not whether CF is MORE efficacious than pulsatile flow. If CF is essentially equivalent, that is all that matters. The maglev CF pumps contain only a single moving part not in contact with anything else, so there is no mechanical wear. A pulsatile pump has a drive mechanism, multiple valves, and a flexing diaphragm, components that are all subject to mechanical failure. Given that rotary pumps can also be significantly smaller and thus fit into a much larger patient population, it is not surprising that rotary pumps are taking over the field.
This is somewhat of a moot point for another reason. Depending on the flow rate and the degree of residual heart function in a particular patient, the flow seen is often pulsatile with CF devices anyway.
Proff, I think we all understand the big if attached to WHRT, its trading at 1.00 after all. I suggest we state our opinions cite our sources and leave the invective for the other boards hopefully we are all here for the same reason to make some dough and exchange info. I appreciate your and zeniths input and opinion.