BiVACOR's Total Artificial Heart Receives FDA Breakthrough Device Designation
HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif., May 30, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--BiVACOR, a clinical-stage medical device company developing the world's first titanium Total Artificial Heart (TAH), today announced that its device has received Breakthrough Device Designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
The designation supports the BiVACOR TAH as a bridge to transplant (BTT) for adults with severe biventricular or univentricular heart failure where current treatments, including LVADs, are not viable. The FDA's Breakthrough Device program is reserved for technologies that may significantly improve outcomes for patients with life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating conditions. It offers priority regulatory interaction and accelerated pathways to approval.
"This is more than a regulatory milestone. It's a validation of a concept we've spent decades proving that a fully implantable, total artificial heart isn't just possible, it's necessary," said Daniel Timms, PhD, Founder and Chief Technology Officer of BiVACOR. "Patients with biventricular failure have been overlooked for too long. The early results from our clinical trial show that we can give them a second chance, without the compromises of older technologies. The Breakthrough Device Designation puts us on a faster track to deliver exactly that."
The milestone follows the first phase of BiVACOR's FDA Early Feasibility Study, where five patients in the U.S. received the TAH between July and November 2024. Based on positive safety and performance data, the FDA approved the expansion of the trial to include 15 additional patients starting later this year.
BiVACOR's device represents a new category in artificial heart technology. Compact enough to fit most men and women, the TAH uses magnetic levitation, similar to maglev trains, to suspend a single dual-sided rotor. This rotor simultaneously powers the right and left circulatory systems, mimicking the natural heartbeat without valves or mechanical wear points. Its simplified design allows for pulsatile flow, large blood gaps to reduce trauma, and long-term durability.
"We've seen every kind of artificial heart technology over the last four decades, but this is the first system I've encountered that combines engineering elegance, efficiency, and safety with true clinical viability," said William Cohn, MD, BiVACOR Chief Medical Officer and heart surgeon at the Texas Heart Institute. "The early results are remarkable with no strokes, no device-related complications, and a safety profile unlike anything in this space. With Breakthrough status in hand, we're entering the next phase with the wind at our backs and real momentum to bring this to more patients."
Heart failure affects more than 6 million Americans, and thousands of patients each year progress to irreversible biventricular failure. However, the number of available donor hearts remains stagnant, with fewer than 4,500 transplants performed annually in the U.S. BiVACOR is targeting this critical gap with a durable artificial replacement engineered for eventual long-term support.
The BiVACOR TAH is currently investigational and not approved for commercial use.
About BiVACOR
BiVACOR® is a clinical-stage medical device company developing a fully implantable, magnetically levitated Total Artificial Heart for long-term support of patients with end-stage biventricular heart failure. Founded by biomedical engineer Daniel Timms, PhD, and backed by leading experts in cardiovascular medicine including Dr. William E. Cohn and Dr. O.H. (Bud) Frazier, the company is conducting an FDA-approved Early Feasibility Study in the U.S. Headquartered in Huntington Beach, CA, with clinical operations in Houston and engineering offices in Gold Coast, Australia, BiVACOR is committed to addressing the global shortage of donor hearts through advanced, scalable technology. Learn more at www.bivacor.com.
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250529170802/en/
Contacts
Media Contact: Dana SummersPenman PRdana@penmanpr.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
More Americans are driving to Canada than Canadians to the U.S., report finds
More American travellers drove to Canada in July than Canadians did to the United States, according to a new report by Statistics Canada. This is the first time such a reversal has taken place since before the COVID-19 pandemic. The dramatic decline of Canadians travelling to the U.S. was sparked last year, with U.S. President Donald Trump's heated rhetoric about Canada becoming the 51st state that led to an ongoing trade war and lingering tension between the two countries. The data for last month shows that 1.8 million American residents drove to Canada, compared to the 1.7 million Canadian residents who made a return trip from the U.S. by car. Canadian road trips to U.S. plunge for seventh month as boycott continues Both countries saw a decline at land border crossings last month. For Americans driving to Canada, there was a slight dip of 7.4 per cent compared to the same month last year. It was also the sixth consecutive month of year-over-year declines. However, the decline was much steeper for Canadians returning from the U.S. this July compared to the previous year, at nearly 37 per cent. Last month marked the seventh consecutive month of year-over-year declines, StatCan said. 'In 2024, Canadian-resident trips to the United States totalled 39 million, representing 75 per cent of all Canadian-resident travel abroad,' according to another StatCan report published earlier this summer about travel to the U.S. 'However, recent data on foreign travel suggest that Canadians' travel sentiment toward their southern neighbour has been shifting in early 2025.' Although the data reflects a 'notable change in travel patterns,' StatCan said it is 'unclear whether the change is temporary or part of a more permanent shift.' As for air travel, the number of non-resident visitors who flew to Canada increased in July. There were 1.4 million of them — up by just over 3 per cent since the same time last year. While the bump was largely due to residents who came from overseas (up 5.6 per cent this year), American travellers were also up by just under 1 per cent. The highest number of U.S.-resident arrivals by air was 31,600 Americans on July 3, before the Independence Day long weekend in the U.S. Meanwhile, the number of Canadians returning home from abroad by air last month was down by 5.3 per cent compared to the previous year. In particular, Canadians flying back from the U.S. also decreased by nearly 26 per cent since the same time last year. Canadian permanent residents will now have to pay 'visa integrity fee' to enter U.S. Here's what it is An American sent to Canada was shocked by how furious Canadians are at the U.S. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's tariffs could actually work
Economists prefer free trade because it is the best policy for global welfare. But what the debate around tariffs often fails to recognize is that there is an economic rationale for U.S. tariffs of 15 to 20 percent. Large countries like the U.S. have market power, which means U.S. demand affects global prices. Tariffs depress U.S. demand, pushing global prices down. As a result of tariffs, the U.S. imports goods at lower prices and also obtains revenue in the process. Most economists estimate that the optimal tariff for the U.S. is between 15 and 20 percent but could be as high as 60 percent. The major problem with imposing high tariffs is that if our trade partners retaliate with similarly high tariffs on imports from the U.S., the U.S. will be worse off. So, the U.S. wants a tariff if it can act alone, but cooperation on low tariffs is the best policy for all — and better for the U.S. — if the alternative is a trade war. To get a sense of the magnitudes, a recent study estimates that 19 percent tariffs could expand U.S. income by roughly 2 percent and boost employment if other countries don't retaliate. However, the effects on income and employment become negative when other countries also impose tariffs. The basic intuition for the tariff is that foreign sellers want access to the huge U.S. market and are willing to pay a fee for that access. Consider a German auto firm, say BMW, that sells lots of cars in the U.S. If the U.S. places a tariff on German cars, Americans will shift to buying more GMs and fewer BMWs. But the U.S. consumer is hard to replace, so BMW will lower the pre-tariff price of its cars to maintain competitiveness. U.S. consumers face somewhat higher prices on BMWs with the tariff, but the tariff revenue that the U.S. government collects more than compensates for the consumer loss, so the U.S. as a country is better off. Put differently, because the U.S. is large, some of the tariff is paid by BMW. The ability to pressure BMW and other German producers to lower prices only works because of the extraordinary buying power of the U.S. consumer. If, for example, a small country, say Ghana, puts a tariff on BMWs, it would negligibly affect total sales, so this effect would be absent. This market power is similar to the leverage that companies like Amazon and Walmart have to push down the prices of their suppliers because they control such a large share of the market. The problem with using market size to push down import prices is that the U.S. is not the only large country. If other large markets, like the European Union and China, also raise tariffs then everyone is worse off. In a trade war, U.S. exporters will also have a hard time selling abroad, while U.S. consumers will have fewer varieties to choose from and face higher prices. The biggest risk Trump took when he reversed decades of low, predictable tariffs was starting a trade war with tariffs spiraling out of control around the world. Given the recent news of U.S. bilateral trade deals with the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Korea and the EU, as well as a preliminary accord with China, the gamble may have paid off. One after another, our most important trade partners are accepting significantly higher U.S. tariffs without raising their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Moreover, in addition to accepting higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S., Europe, Japan and Korea are committing to increased investment in the United States. Why are countries caving? The large market is part of it, but the gaping U.S. trade deficit with these markets also matters. It gives the U.S. additional leverage since American consumers are needed to buy foreign goods to a greater extent than American businesses need foreigners to buy U.S. goods. The U.S. military might also factor in, as many of the countries making deals depend on the U.S. for security. The unpredictability introduced may already be depressing investment and hiring, as investors and firms have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Similarly, companies that rely heavily on imported parts and components may be unable to survive in the U.S., leading to job loss in import-dependent industries. Already high, U.S. inequality could get worse if care is not taken since low-income families spend more of their income on goods, making them more vulnerable to price increases. There are also major global threats. The bullying that was part of achieving these trade deals could lead to backlash against the U.S. and its brand with real consequences of sustained loss of U.S. leadership and power in all global matters. The unpredictability introduced may depress investment, as investors have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Domestic political blowback in our trade partners against the U.S. could ultimately create pressure for higher tariffs on imports from the U.S., resulting in a trade war. Variable U.S. tariffs across trade partners — already ranging from 15 to 55 percent — will create trade diversion and administrative costs. Countries could look to other markets and make deals that exclude the U.S., reducing our global leverage. And the list goes on. But if the U.S. government moves on from these trade wins, facilitating a return to predictable policy, and shows more openness to global cooperation in other critical areas, Trump's trade policy could boost U.S. income without major damage to our global standing or global investment. Perhaps this is the hope that has been driving the stock market up. The risks are many and great. But given the (surprisingly) flexible response abroad to date, the policy is not guaranteed to fail as many assumed. One big bullet may have been dodged. .
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Mars says M&M's, Starbursts without synthetic dyes coming in 2026
Video above: FDA announces in April 2025 that it will phase out food dyes. (NEXSTAR) — While several other food companies had confirmed they would drop artificial food dyes in response to a mission set forth by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier this summer, Mars Wrigley was considered a holdout. That quietly changed late last month. In a late-July statement, which was first reported by Bloomberg on Thursday, Mars Wrigley North America announced it plans to release 'product options' made without artificial dyes in 2026. These options without synthetic dyes will be available only across four of its brands to start, according to the statement: M&M's, Skittles Original, Extra Gum Spearmint, and Starburst Original fruit chews. They'll be available to purchase online throughout the U.S. A spokesperson confirmed to Nexstar that the 'choice products' without artificial dyes will be additions to the current brands. They declined to say whether currently available products will be affected by the dye changes. AT&T reached a $177M settlement over data breaches: Will you get a payment? Mars did not immediately respond to Nexstar's request for additional information, like whether these options will replace others within each brand's portfolio, or if currently available products would be otherwise impacted. 'When we have identified fully effective, scalable solutions across the entire portfolio, we will share additional item commitments and timelines,' the company said in its statement. In April, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency would move to eliminate several synthetic dyes by the end of next year. That includes Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, and Blue 2. Red 3 was set to be banned in food by 2027 because it caused cancer in laboratory rats; the FDA called for that deadline to move up. The FDA has been relying on companies voluntarily ditching the aforementioned dyes, but does plan to establish a standard and timeline for the food industry to switch to natural alternatives and revoke authorization for dyes not in production. Additionally, the FDA said it would authorize four new natural color additives. Several food manufacturers have already announced plans to ditch synthetic colors. That includes General Mills, Pepsico, ConAgra, Nestle, McCormick, Tyson Foods, Sam's Club, JM Smucker, Hershey, Kraft Heinz, and dozens of companies that make ice cream and frozen dairy desserts. Mars, however, was a holdout as of mid-July. The company now stands to be among the first to have products without artificial dyes available. Artificial dyes are used widely in U.S. foods. In Canada and in Europe — where synthetic colors are required to carry warning labels — manufacturers mostly use natural substitutes. Several states, including California and West Virginia, have passed laws restricting the use of artificial colors in foods. Health advocates have long called for the removal of artificial dyes from foods, citing mixed studies indicating they can cause neurobehavioral problems, including hyperactivity and attention issues, in some children. The FDA has maintained that the approved dyes are safe and that 'the totality of scientific evidence shows that most children have no adverse effects when consuming foods containing color additives.' The FDA currently allows 36 food color additives, including eight synthetic dyes. Removing dyes from the food supply will not address the chief health problems that plague Americans, said Susan Mayne, a Yale University chronic disease expert and former director of the FDA's food center. 'With every one of their announcements, they're focusing in on something that's not going to accomplish what they say it is,' Mayne said of Kennedy's initiatives. 'Most of these food dyes have been in our food supply for 100 years. … So why aren't they driving toward reductions in things that do drive chronic disease rates?'
