There was a conference of physicians in Minneapolis about the Riata (STJ) lead. A summary is linked below, but I thought the most important part was
"The attendees were polled again at the completion of the session and already high concerns were amplified. A higher proportion than earlier (58%) of those polled felt the Riata situation was a more serious problem than the Fidelis recall and 44% indicated that they had enough concern about the market released Durata lead that they would not be using this in the future. Despite HRS consensus recommendations to the contrary, 55% of attendees favored routine repeated fluoroscopic monitoring."
1. If 44% of physicians are not going to use Durata, because they are concerned, is this going to drive sales to BSX and MDT? 2. Has STJ's historical advantage been their leads or their defib technology? 3. Is it likely that there was a selection bias in the survey results (less than 63 doctors)? It seems like physicians that did not use Riata/Durata would not have bothered to come and that those physicians that did come would already have been concerned.
Read for yourself. Expecially the first paragraph. This article/post was writing by a physician from Cincinnati OH that attended this Riata lead summit. He expressed in the first paragraph his disappointment of how this is being handled by St. Jude. (his words not mine)
He also made no mention of people leaving early. Doesn't mean that they did or didn't. They could have very easily left early and been asked to take 2 minutes to fill out a survey before they walked out of the meeting.
I think the numbers in the article and the mentions of Durata lead and it's issues speak for themselves.