Wound Management Forecast 2016 to 2026

The global annual market for products used in wound management is currently a behemoth of $20.2 billion. The wound management forecast to 2026 shows the global market hitting $38 billion as it grows in response to strong wound care demand.

The market is driven by inescapable demographics — an aging population, with dramatically increasing prevalence of obesity and diabetes leading to growth in the most expensive types of wounds, chronic wounds. The market is also growing as a result of advanced wound technologies that improving in their ability to shorten healing time, costs, or both.

Chronic wound remain a big focus, for good reasons. From our press release:

“Our recent research shows that chronic wounds, which have long been no secret to clinicians, epidemiologists, and product manufacturers as a growing health problem, are actually even more prevalent and costly than has been previously reported.”

Care of chronic wounds is a significant, global burden on healthcare systems. In the USA alone, it is estimated that at least 6.7 million people suffer with chronic wounds, requiring treatment in excess of $20-50 billion per year .

With many, many active companies in an industry that started hundreds of years ago, an almost continuous spectrum of products exists from low tech (gauze) to high tech (bioengineered skin):

      • traditional adhesive
      • traditional gauze
      • non-adherent
      • film
      • foam
      • hydrogel
      • hydrocolloid
      • alginate
      • antimicrobial
      • collagen
      • negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT)
      • bioengineered skin & skin substitution
      • growth factors

Growth in sales varies, with the lowest rates for traditional products and the highest rates generally for the advanced products. We say generally because, depending upon the product and the geographic location, sales growth rates can be considerable. The end result is that the makeup of the wound market will change from 2016 to 2026. See below:

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report S254.

Put another way, some segments will gain share of the total wound market at the expense of others:

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report #S254.

 

And considering geography, the wound care industry recognizes the major impact of China on future demand, eventually eclipsing U.S. sales:

USA vs. Asia/Pacific Wound Sales

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report S254.

Companies

The wound care industry remains quite fragmented, with about eight companies holding leading market shares, but with possibly thousands of small cap companies around the world that are also manufacturing and marketing various wound care products. The Traditional Wound Care space remains attractive, in part since gauze dressings are relatively easy to manufacture and are also still the most commonly-used wound dressing.

2017 Worldwide Wound Management Market Shares

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report S254.


The MedMarket Diligence Report #S254 is described in detail at link.

Separate size, growth and competitor data are presented for the U.S., rest of North America, Latin America, leading western European countries (specifically, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain), rest of Europe, Japan, Korea, rest of Asia/Pacific, and the Rest of World category. The report’s company profiles assess 92 leading and key emerging companies regarding current/projected products, technologies and positions in the advanced wound care market.

 

 

Chronic wounds drive product development

To the person with a chronic wound, the condition represents pain, social and psychological debilitation and usually a financial load. To society, wound care—and especially the treatment of difficult-to-heal wounds—may represent great human suffering, social discomfort, days lost from work, mental health problems, recurrent infections and great economic burden and the human burden of wound care. Having a chronic wound not only necessitates physical care of the wound, including cleaning, disinfecting, irrigating, and changing dressings; it also impacts the emotional and psychological health of the patient. Depression can set in due to a lower quality of life and dependence on others for care of the wound, as well as for overall assistance, both physical and financial. Wounds may cause odors or may have visible drainage, staining clothing and triggering feelings of embarrassment and shame. These in turn may lead to isolation due to decreased mobility and the fear of being a burden on family and friends. To make things worse, increased stress can slow the progress of wound healing.  For all of these reasons, chronic wounds drive product development.

Growth and trends in the global prevalence of wounds
Prevalence by wound type, 2016-2026

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report S254.

In caring for a chronic wound, the dressing costs are only part of the picture; the less visible costs include such items as nursing care, medications for pain and infections, and hospitalization. Hospitalization is a leading cost driver for wound care, accounting for at least 50% of the global economic burden. Nursing time to properly care for the patient with a chronic wound can be lengthy, and this is time that could be spent with other patients. In a new report published in the December 2017 online version of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research’s (ISPOR) Value in Health journal (An Economic Evaluation of the Impact, Cost, and Medicare Policy Implications of Chronic Nonhealing Wounds. Nussbaum, Samuel R. et al. Value in Health, Volume 21 , Issue 1 , 27 – 32) (see the study), the researchers found that the costs related to wound care in the Medicare population (USA) were much higher than originally estimated, and that care took place primarily in outpatient settings. For the calendar year 2014, there is considerable variation in the estimates originating from different sources:

“Total Medicare spending estimates for all wound types ranged from $28.1 to $96.8 billion. Including infection costs, the most expensive estimates were for surgical wounds ($11.7, $13.1, and $38.3 billion), followed by diabetic foot ulcers ($6.2, $6.9, and $18.7 billion,). The highest cost estimates in regard to site of service were for hospital outpatients ($9.9–$35.8 billion), followed by hospital inpatients ($5.0–$24.3 billion).”

The development of advanced wound care dressings, devices and biologics is helping to change this situation. Although these advanced products may seem (or may be) expensive, they end up saving money for health care systems by healing wounds more rapidly.

Industry Structure

The wound care industry remains quite fragmented, with about eight companies holding leading market shares, but with possibly thousands of small cap companies around the world that are also manufacturing and marketing various wound care products. The Traditional Wound Care space remains attractive, in part since gauze dressings are relatively easy to manufacture and are also still the most commonly-used wound dressing. Even a small company can invent a novel twist to a dressing and experience a rise in profits and inroads into the market.

Low to medium industry concentration. As the traditional and advanced market shares diagrams below demonstrate, there are five to eight major players in Traditional and Advanced Wound Care Markets.

Traditional Wound Care Market Shares, 2017

Source: Report S254, “Wound Management to 2026”.

While these firms account for about 79% and 73% of the total markets, respectively, a significant portion of these markets are covered by hundreds or thousands of Other companies. This low to medium level of concentration means that smaller companies, or large companies looking to break into Wound Care, are able to do so more easily than if, say, three companies controlled 95% of the market.

Johnson & Johnson is estimated to be the Traditional Wound Care market leader with about 26% share, followed by Smith & Nephew, 3M Health Care and Hartmann. Medline Industries is estimated to account for about 8%, while Others account for about 21% of this market.

Breaking into the Advanced Wound Care markets presents a somewhat greater challenge. Here, the leading companies have invested heavily in R&D to gain strategic competitive advantage, as well as to create improved products for patients. Smith & Nephew is holds an estimated 21% of this market, followed by Acelity and Johnson & Johnson with 11% each, and Mölnlycke, 3M Health Care, Hartmann, Cardinal Health and ConvaTec accounting for smaller shares. Here again, Others accounts for at least 27% of this market.

Advanced Wound Care Market Shares, 2017

Source: Report S254. 

Opportunities exist in both Traditional and Advanced Wound Care, especially if a company is in the position of acquiring part or all of an existing wound care company, and if the company can then invest in the development of its new products. If points of distribution overlap, then so much the better.

Relatively low barriers to entry. Good news for companies wishing to break into wound care: barriers to entry into the traditional wound dressing segments (Adherents, Gauze and Non-Adherent Dressings) are relatively low, while demand remains strong. Typically, once a company is established in a traditional segment, it may either plow revenues into research and development, or it may acquire companies to more easily break into new product segments and markets. Many companies in wound care have followed just this path to gain market share and make an impact in the industry.


From, “Wound Management to 2026”; Report S254. Excerpts available.

Global Wound Prevalence Forecast by Type, 2016-2026

The clinical driver of sales in wound care is the prevalence of different wound types and the associated cost to manage them. While surgical wounds made by primary intent as part of surgical procedures (e.g., excision of skin lesion, appendectomy, coronary artery bypass graft, etc.) represent the biggest source of wounds, the biggest focus on reining in costs in medtech is slow-healing, chronic wounds, such as ulcers.

We have projected the global prevalence for the most common wound types through 2026, shown below.

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report #S254(Request excerpts.)

 

Country and Regional Variability in Growth of Wound Management Sales

The growth/volume distribution of wound care technologies.

As illustrated in a previous post, wound management products are a spectrum from the simple to the complex:

Source: MedMarket Diligence Report #S254.

Generally, the longer the product has been around (e.g., gauze), the less complex it is compared to emerging technologies…

…BUT simpler is easy to adopt and, with well established sales, growth on a percentage basis will be low (see area in red)..’

Generally, new technologies incorporate rarer materials, have more complex construction, and may cost considerably more…

…BUT complex technologies may be far more effective clinically than older technologies and may allow treatment where no older technology could, and with low initial sales (penetrated potential), growth on a percentage bases will be high (see area in green).

Country and Regional Variation in Growth Rates

While this size-to-growth dynamic exists for most product types, the dynamic varies from one geographic region to the next. The time point at which a particular product/technology starts to be more rapidly adopted — or the rate at which use of  established products are use starts to decline — can vary considerably from country to country.

As a result, there will be variability in sales growth rates for a product in one country/region versus another.

For example, the 2017 to 2026 compound annual growth rate in sales of Alginates in wound management range from a low of 5.3% in one country to a high of 24.3% in another country. (If you make alginates, in which country would YOU like to compete?)

Regionally, as in USA versus Europe versus Asia/Pacific, etc., there is less variation in growth rates for any given product in that region. For alginates:

  • country-to-country variation in CAGR: 19%
  • region-to-region variation in CAGR: 7.8%

In other words, the difference between the countries with the highest and lowest CAGRs for alginate sales is 19%, while the difference between regions shows one region with a 7.8% higher CAGR for alginates than the lowest growth region.

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report #S254.

Before chasing after that high growth rate, it is important to know the underlying volume. (Sales of $1 in year 1 and $2 in year 2 is a 100% growth rate, but it’s absolute growth of only $1.)


See the full REPORT, “Wound Management to 2026” details or order online. Please also see the forecast and market share data available separately from the report.

 

Wounds looking for closure: Untapped potential for sealants, glues, hemostats

Today’s surgeon has a broad range of products from which to choose for closing and sealing wounds. These include sutures, stapling devices, vascular clips, ligatures, and thermal devices, as well as a wide range of topical hemostats, surgical sealants and glues.

However, surgeons still primarily use sutures for wound closure and securement—sutures are cheap, familiar and work most of the time. Now, in addition to reaching for a stapling device, the surgeon must frequently decide at what point to augment or replace the commonly used items in favor of other products, which product is best for what procedure or condition, how much to use, and ease of use in order to achieve optimal patient outcomes. Because of budget pressures, the surgeon must also consider price when selecting a product. Of course in the USA, the product must also be FDA-approved, although the surgeon still has the choice of using a product off-label.

In the areas of sealants, hemostats and glues, there is room for both improvement and additional products.  There are a number of products already on the market, but the fact is that there is no one product that meets all needs in all situations and procedures. There are few products that stand out from the rest, apart, perhaps, from DermaBond® and BioGlue®. There are unmet needs, and companies having the necessary technology, or which may acquire and further develop the technology, can enter this market and launch novel items. These products have yet to significantly tap the potential for wound management and medical/surgical procedures.

Note: Log10 scale; Chronic wounds includes pressure, venous/arterial and diabetic ulcers.

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report #S290.

Sealants, Fibrin and Others

Numerous variants of fibrin sealant exist, including autologous products. “Other” sealants refers to thrombin, collagen & gelatin-based sealants.

Fibrin sealants are used in the US in a wide array of applications; they are used the most in orthopedic surgeries, where the penetration rate is thought to be 25-30%. Fibrin sealants can, however, be ineffective under wet surgical conditions. The penetration rate in other surgeries is estimated to be about 10-15%.

Fibrin-based sealants were originally made with bovine components. These components were judged to increase the risk of developing bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), so second-generation commercial fibrin sealants (CSF) avoided bovine-derived materials. The antifibrinolytic tranexamic acid (TXA) was used instead of bovine aprotinin. Later, the TXA was removed, again due to safety issues. Today, Ethicon’s (JNJ) Evicel is an example of this product, which Ethicon says is the only all human, aprotinin free, fibrin sealant indicated for general hemostasis. Market growth in the Sealants sector is driven by the need for improved biocompatibility and stronger sealing ability—in other words, meeting the still-unsatisfied needs of physician end-users.

High Strength Medical Glues

Similar to that of sealants, the current market penetration of glues in the US is thought to be about 25% of eligible surgeries. There are several strong points in favor of the use of medical glues: their use can significantly reduce healthcare costs, for example by reducing time in the surgical suite, reducing the risk of a bleed, which may mean a return trip to the OR, and general ease of use. Patients seem to prefer the glues over receiving sutures for an external wound, as glues can provide a suture-free method of closing wounds. In addition, if glues are selected over sutures, the physician can avoid the need (and cost) of administering local anesthesia to the wound site.

Hemostats

Hemostats are normally used in surgical procedures only when conventional bleeding control methods are ineffective or impractical. The hemostat market offers opportunities as customers seek products that better meet their needs. Above and beyond having hemostats that are effective and reliable, additional improvements that they wish to see in hemostat products include: laparoscopy-friendly; work regardless of whether the patient is on anticoagulants or not; easy to prepare and store, with a long shelf life; antimicrobial; transparent so that the surgeon continues to have a clear field of view; and non-toxic; i.e. preferably not made from human or animal materials.


Drawn from, “Worldwide Markets for Medical and Surgical Sealants, Glues, and Hemostats, 2015-2022:  Established and Emerging Products, Technologies and Markets in the Americas, Europe, Asia/Pacific and Rest of World.” Report #S290.

Sealants, glues, hemostats not poised for world domination

Market shares for sales of sealants, glues, and hemostats vary considerably from region to region globally due to the significant variations in the local market demand, rate of adoption of specific manufacturers’ products, the regulatory climate, local economies, and other factors. Consequently, manufacturers with significant share of sales in the U.S. or Europe or Asia/Pacific may have considerably lower or higher shares in other regions.

In the U.S., Ethicon and Baxter have dominant positions in sales of surgical sealants. However, in Europe and Asia/Pacific, Baxter has substantially smaller position, particularly relative to competitors like Takeda Pharmaceuticals and The Medicines Company.

Source: Report #S290, MedMarket Diligence, LLC

In the market for hemostats, similarly, Ethicon and Baxter have dominant position in the U.S. market, but in Asia/Pacific and Europe, Baxter is subordinate to Takeda Pharmaceuticals, CryoLife, and others.

Source: Report #S290, MedMarket Diligence, LLC

In medical glues, CryoLife has risen to the fore with its BioGlue, such that it has a global leading position as well as specifically in the U.S., Europe, and Asia/Pacific.

Source: Report #S290, MedMarket Diligence, LLC

Medtech fundings for May 2017

Medtech fundings for May 2017 stand at $367 million, led by the $76.5 million raised by Outset Medical, followed by $46.6 million by Cerus, the $46 million raised by Magenta Therapeutics, and the $45 million by Advanced Cardiac Therapeutics.

Below are the top funding for the month. The complete list of fundings are shown at link (refresh for updates during the month).

Source: Compiled by MedMarket Diligence, LLC.

For a historical listing of medtech fundings by month since 2009, see link.

Bioengineered skin and skin substitutes in wound management

Bioengineered skin was developed because of the need to cover extensive burn injuries in patients who no longer had enough skin for grafting. Not so long ago, a patient with third degree burns over 50% of his body surface usually died from his injuries. That is no longer the case. Today, even someone with 90% total body surface area burn has a good chance of surviving. With the array of bioengineered skin and skin substitutes available today, such products are also finding use for chronic wounds, in order to prevent infection, speed healing and provide improved cosmetic results.

Skin used in wound care may be autograft (from the patient’s own body, as is often the case with burn patients), allograft (cadaver skin), xenogeneic (from animals such as pigs or cows), or a combination of these. Bioengineered skin substitutes are synthetic, although they, too, may be combined with other products. It consists of an outer epidermal layer and (depending on the product) a dermal layer, which are embedded into an acellular support matrix. This product may be autogenic, or from other sources. Currently most commercial bioengineered skin is sheets of cells derived from neonatal allogenic foreskin. This source is chosen for several reasons: because the cells come from healthy newborns undergoing circumcision, and therefore the tissue would have been discarded anyway; foreskin tissue is high in epidermal keratinocyte stem cells, which grow vigorously; and because allergic reactions to this tissue is uncommon.

Bioengineered skin and skin substitutes are on the market and in development by LifeCell (Acelity), Organogenesis, Smith & Nephew, Organogenesis, Vericel Corporation (formerly Aastrom Biosciences), Mölnlycke Health Care, Integra LifeSciences, Smith & Nephew, Stratatech Corporation, A-Skin, University Children’s Hospital, Zurich; EuroSkinGraft.

The market may become more crowded as growth in the adoption of these products draws more competitors. Bioengineered skin and skin substitutes will drive more revenue than any other segment of the broader wound management market.

Growth in Advanced Wound Market Segments, 2014 to 2024

Competitors’ positions in bioengineered skin are variable based on their geographic presence. See shares in the U.S., the UK, and Germany for bioengineered skin & skin substitutes.

 

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report #S251, “Wound Management to 2024.”

 

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report #S251, “Wound Management to 2024.”

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC; Report #S251, “Wound Management to 2024.”

 

The global dynamics of cardiovascular surgical and interventional procedures

This is an excerpt from Report #C500, “Cardiovascular Procedures to 2022.”

Cardiovascular Procedures in 2016

• Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery;
 • Coronary angioplasty and stenting;
 • Lower extremity arterial bypass surgery;
  • Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) with and without bare metal and drug-eluting stenting;
  • Peripheral drug-coated balloon angioplasty;
  • Peripheral atherectomy;
  • Surgical and endovascular aortic aneurysm repair;
  • Vena cava filter placement
  • Endovenous ablation;
  • Mechanical venous thrombectomy;
  • Venous angioplasty and stenting;
  • Carotid endarterectomy;
  • Carotid artery stenting;
  • Cerebral thrombectomy;
  • Cerebral aneurysm and AVM surgical clipping;
  • Cerebral aneurysm and AVM coiling & flow diversion;
  • Left Atrial Appendage closure;
  • Heart valve repair and replacement surgery;
  • Transcatheter valve repair and replacement;
  • Congenital heart defect repair;
  • Percutaneous and surgical placement of temporary and permanent mechanical cardiac support devices;
  • Pacemaker implantation;
  • Implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement;
  • Cardiac resynchronization therapy device placement;
  • Standard SVT & VT ablation; and
  • Transcatheter AFib ablation

In 2016, the cumulative worldwide volume of the most prevalent cardiovascular procedures (at right) is projected to approach 15.05 million surgical and transcatheter interventions. This will include:

  • roughly 4.73 million coronary revascularization procedures via CABG and PCI (or about 31.4% of the total),
  • close to 4 million percutaneous and surgical peripheral artery revascularization procedures (or 26.5% of the total);
  • about 2.12 million cardiac rhythm management procedures via implantable pulse generator placement and arrhythmia ablation (or 14.1% of the total);
  • over 1.65 million CVI, DVT, and PE targeting venous interventions (representing 11.0% of the total);
  • more than 992 thousand surgical and transcatheter heart defect repairs and valvular interventions (or 6.6% of the total);
  • close to 931 thousand acute stroke prophylaxis and treatment procedures (contributing 6.2% of the total);
  • over 374 thousand abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysm endovascular and surgical repairs (or 2.5% of the total); and
  • almost 254 thousand placements of temporary and permanent mechanical cardiac support devices in bridge to recovery, bridge to transplant, and destination therapy indications (accounting for about 1.7% of total procedure volume).

During the period 2016 to 2022, the total worldwide volume of covered cardiovascular procedures is forecast to expand on average by 3.7% per annum to over 18.73 million corresponding surgeries and transcatheter interventions in the year 2022. The largest absolute gains can be expected in peripheral arterial interventions (thanks to explosive expansion in utilization of drug-coated balloons in all market geographies), followed by coronary revascularization (supported by continued strong growth in Chinese and Indian PCI utilization) and endovascular venous interventions (driven by grossly underserved patient caseloads within the same Chinese and Indian market geography).

The latter (venous) indications are also expected to register the fastest (5.1%) relative procedural growth, followed by peripheral revascularization (with 4.0% average annual advances) and aortic aneurysm repair (projected to show a 3.6% average annual expansion).

http://mediligence.com/c500/

Geographically, Asian-Pacific (APAC) market geography accounts for slightly larger share of the global CVD procedure volume than the U.S. (29.5% vs 29,3% of the total), followed by the largest Western European states (with 23.9%) and ROW geographies (with 17.3%). Because of the faster growth in all covered categories of CVD procedures, the share of APAC can be expected to increase to 33.5% of the total by the year 2022, mostly at the expense of the U.S. and Western Europe.

However, in relative per capita terms, covered APAC territories (e.g., China and India) are continuing to lag far behind developed Western states in utilization rates of therapeutic CVD interventions with roughly 1.57 procedures per million of population performed in 2015 for APAC region versus about 13.4 and 12.3 CVD interventions done per million of population in the U.S. and largest Western European countries.


Report #C500: “Global Dynamics of Surgical and Interventional Cardiovascular Procedures, 2015-2022.” Request excerpts.

This report may be purchased for immediate download at link.

The rise and fall of medical technologies

When does one recognize that horse-and-buggy whips are in decline and auto-mobiles are on the rise?

When does one recognize that a new technology is a definite advance over established ones in the treatment of particular disease, in cost or quality?

Technologies go through life cycles.

A medical technology is introduced that is found effective in the management of a disease. Over time, the technology is improved upon marginally, but eventually a new technology, often radically different, emerges that is more effective or better (cheaper, less invasive, easier to use). It enters the market, takes market share from and grows, only to be later eclipsed by a new (apologies) “paradigm”. Each new technology, marginal or otherwise, advances the limit of what is possible in care.

Predicting the marginal and the more radical innovation is necessary to illustrate where medicine is headed, and its impact. Many stakeholders have interest in this — insurance companies (reimbursing technologies or covering the liabilities), venture capitalists, healthcare providers, patients, and the medical technology companies themselves.

S-curves illustrate the rise in performance or demand over time for new technologies and show the timing and relative impact of newer technologies when they emerge. Importantly, the relative timing and impact of emerging technologies can be qualitatively and quantitatively predicted. Historic data is extremely useful predicting the rise and fall of specific medical technologies in specific disease treatment.

Following are two examples of diseases with multiple technologies arcing through patient demand over time.

  • Ischemic Heart Disease Past, Current, and Future Technologies
    • Open bypass
    • Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty
    • Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB)
    • Percutaneous CABG
    • Stem-cell impregnated heart patches

The treatment of ischemic heart disease, given the seriousness of the disease and its prevalence, has a long history in medicine and within the past fifty years has a remarkable timeline of innovations. Ischemia is condition in which inadequate blood flow to an area due to constriction of blood vessels from inflammation or atherosclerosis can cause cell death. In the case of cardiac ischemia, in which the coronary arteries that supply the heart itself with blood are occluded, the overall cell death can result in myocardial infarction and death.

The effort to re-establish adequate blood flow to heart muscle has evolved from highly invasive surgery in which coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) requires cutting through the patient’s sternum and other tissues to access the heart, then graft arteries and/or veins to flow to the poorly supplied tissue, to (2) minimally invasive, endoscope procedures that do not require cutting the sternum to access the heart and perform the graft and significantly improve healing times and reduced complications, to as illustrated, multiple technologies rise and fall over time with their impacts and their timing considered.

Technology S-Curves in the Management of Ischemic Heart Disease

(Note: These curves are generally for illustrative purposes only; some likely dynamics may not be well represented in the above. Also note that, in practice, demand for old technologies doesn’t cease, but declines at a rate connected to the rise of competing technologies, so after peaking, the S-curves start a descent at various rates toward zero. Also, separately note that the “PTCA” labeled curve corresponds to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, encompassing the percutaneous category of approaches to ischemic heart disease. PTCA itself has evolved from balloon angioplasty alone to the adjunctive use of stents of multiple material types with or without drug elution and even bioabsorbable stents.)
Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC

Resulting Technology Shifts

Falling: Open surgical instrumentation, bare metal stents.
Rising and leveling: thoracoscopic instrumentation, monitors
Rising later: stem-cells, extracellular matrices, atherosclerosis-reducing drugs
Rising even later: gene therapy

The minimally invasive technologies enabled by thoracoscopy (used in MIDCAB) and catheterization pulled just about all the demand out of open coronary artery bypass grafting, though the bare metal stents used initially alongside angioplasty have also been largely replaced by drug-eluting stents, which also may be replaced by drug-eluting balloon angioplasty. Stem cells and related technologies used to deliver them will later represent new growth in treatment of ischemia, at least to some degree at the expense of catheterization (PTCA and percutaneous CABG). Eventually, gene therapy may prove able to prevent the ischemia to develop in the first place.

  • Wound Management Past, Current, and Future Technologies
    • Gauze bandages/dressings
    • Hydrogel, alginate, and antimicrobial dressings
    • Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT)
    • Bioengineered skin substitutes
    • Growth factors

Another great example of a disease or condition treated by multiple evolving technologies over time is wound management, which has evolved from simple gauze dressings to advanced dressings, to systems like negative pressure wound therapy, hyperbaric oxygen and others, to biological growth factors to bioengineered skin and skin substitutes.

Technology S-Curves in the Management of Ischemic Heart Disease

Source: MedMarket Diligence, LLC

Resulting Technology Shifts

Falling: Traditional gauze and other simple dressings
Falling: NPWT, hyperbaric oxygen
Rising: Advanced wound dressings, bioengineered skin, growth factors

Wound management has multiple technologies concurrently available, rather than sequential (when one largely replaces the other) over time. Unsurprisingly, traditional dressings are in decline. Equipment-related technologies like NPWT and hyperbaric oxygen are on the wane as well. While wound management is not a high growth area, advanced dressings are rising due to their ability to heal wounds faster, an important factor considering that chronic, slow-healing wounds are a significant contributor to high costs. Bioengineered skin is patient-specific, characterized by faster healing and, therefore, rising.