Hi @Hawk70, re " Yup - because Revascor doesn't have any effect...

Hi @Hawk70,

re " Yup - because Revascor doesn't have any effect on coronary artery clearance.It will never take a cent from CABG surgical budgets, no matter how much word salad you toss around to impress the masses."

I felt I had to say that you and @otherperspective have focussed on a very interesting point IMO i.e. the extent to which the regenerative effects of Revascor treatments may benefit other patients than just those LVAD recipients with the obvious unmet need. Keep in mind that Mesoblast has received RMAT designation from the FDA for the treatment of CHF in patients with implanted LVADs - the key word here being 'regenerative', IMO.

As I understand them, the consequences of cardiac ischemia are complex. I don't believe OP is/was seeking to make a causative clinical link or correlative association between CHF and CABG treatments, or Revascor and CABG for that matter. However, there is an argument for Revascor's utility in related situations which cardiology consultants face at present, and I don't believe your own posts were intended to explore this in detail. That doesn't mean there arent others out there álready looking at exactly this possiblitiy.

Can I suggest that we look at this more broadly.

Perhaps the below article may assist to provide some basic context on the scope of the clinical challenge for cardiologists in the USA and elsewhere, & a possible supportive opportunity for Revascor (off-label for now) on which we can all agree.

Link here:




...and in particular, this introductory section:



Hope this assists.

Cheers,
GLTA(LT)H