Since reference has been made to "Don" with regard to the accuracy of a comparison between Cardio and Vaso, which I did not intend to disclose, I think it is now only fair that the readers see the comparison so they can judge for themselves. It was sent to me by John Hutchins, Vice President of Cardiomedical, Sales and Marketing
"We are in receipt of your December 8 letter as well as your December 23 Internet Communication. I must apologize for taking so long to respond to your initial fax but we have been traveling extenseively trying to stay abreast of the tremendous demand for our CardiAssist device. We are very pleased to have exceeded our third and fourth quarter objectives. The first quarter of 1998 also looks phenomenal.
You asked several questions in your 12/8 fax that I would like to attempt to answer. I am sending a reference piece that thoroughly depicts the differences between our CardiAssist device and Vasomedical's Chinese device. The reference to an importer that I previously worked for is Vasomedical.
Regarding our plans for an IPO, depending on the market, we hope to go public in the spring time frame (April or May) of 1998. We are currently working with several investment banking firms in order to raise the last $5,000,000 we require, via a private placement memorandum.
Thanks for your interest in Cardiomedics. If you have additional question/requests don't hesitat to call or fax."
"CARDIOMEDICS - VASOMEDICAL COMPARISON
Place of manufacture Cardio - Irvine, CA Vaso - China
Electrical requirements 1-20-amp regular outlet 1-15 & 1-20 amp
special outlet
Space requirements Minimal 10' x 10' room
Medical grade components Yes Unknown
Portable Yes No
Number of components 1 4
P.C based Yes No
Type of controls Touch screen/keyboard Manual knobs and
buttons
Type of circuit boards Computer wired/soldered Hand wired/soldered
PATENT SAFETY FEATURES
Emergency system power down Yes Patient "OFF" switch
High tank pressure Yes No
Low tank pressure Yes No
High cuff pressure Yes No
Low cuff pressure Yes No
High heart rate Yes switches to 2:1
Low heart rate Yes shuts down
No cuff inflation Yes No
No cuff deflation Yes No
Cuff pressure after PVC Normal 150% of normal
Patien isolation circuit Yes No
Ground fault protection Yes No
Number of cuffs 2 or 3 3
Internal Strip chart recorder Yes No
Computerized patient records Yes No
Download patient to disk Yes No
Customize software Yes No
Modem ready Yes No
Decibel noise lever Approximately 50 db Approximately 72 db
Real time ECG, pressure trace Yes No
Continuous Augmentation ratio Yes No"
Please note that the latter part refers to PATENT SAFETY FEATURES which should represent an indisputable difference. References was made in the post to which I referred that some of the differences were
questionable. I understand from Vaso that they can now put their equpment in an amubulance for emergency use, but this is not fully portable. There may also have been some recent minor catch-up changes, but the differences are overwhelming, especially those under patent. Natalie Carp from Vaso conceded to me that Cardio is, as she put it, cosmetically superior. This is a gross understatement if you happened to see the cumbersone Vaso equipment on TV.
I would not have mentioned all this had there been no reference to me and information that I had emailed specifically stating that I used email to avoid posting this information. When the accuracey of the comparison was questioned I felt it my responsibility in fairness to both Cardio and Vaso, but more especially to the readers to make this information public. I trust that relevant information from any reliable source is always welcome on SI.
Don Walster |
