Hello folks. Barons carried a piece on cardiac-device makers in it's Technology Week column. It mentioned a tiny outfit named Cambridge Heart (CAMH). It spoke about a recent study of the companies product compared against another competitor's method. CHICAGO -(Dow Jones)- Results from a medical trial reviewed Wednesday showed that a noninvasive test works as well as an older and more expensive procedure for predicting serious risks for patients who may need an implantable defibrillator. The two testing methods differed, however, in the time frames for which they made good predictions regarding patient risk, with the newer test sporting a shorter predictive time frame. That test, called "microvolt t-wave alternans," or MTWA, is made by Cambridge Heart Inc. (CAMH) and is already on the market. The new study of its capability, however, has been closely watched amid expectations from some analysts that wider test adoption might reduce the number of patients who are seen as potential candidates for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, or ICD. Medtronic Inc. (MDT), Boston Scientific Corp. (BSX) and St. Jude Medical Inc. (STJ) are the three ICD makers. The "Alternans Before Cardioverter Defibrillator" trial showed that the two diagnostic tests under review appear "equally predictive," according to a press release. Results from the ABCD trial were released early Wednesday at the American Heart Association's annual Scientific Sessions conference here. The release also said that the MTWA test is "far less expensive, requires less expertise, and is less risky." The test uses sensors on the chest to detect tiny voltage changes between beats that could indicate issues, while the traditional diagnostic tool requires a catheter threaded into the heart. Dr. David S. Rosenbaum of the MetroHealth Heart and Vascular Center in Cleveland, the study's principal investigator and a Cambridge Heart consultant, said the older test's potential to be used as a widespread screening tool is restrained by the small risks and the high degree of expertise it requires. The release noted that most ICDs, which are expensive at roughly $25,000, are never called on to deliver therapy after they are implanted. The devices provide shocks to stop potentially fatal rapid heart beats in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death - the leading natural cause of death for U.S. adults. The ABCD trial looked at 566 patients over four years, comparing Cambridge Heart's device to an electrophysiological study, which is typically used to determine whether patients need an ICD. "We found the positive predictive value of the two tests to be about equal," said Rosenbaum, who is also a professor at Case Western Reserve University. The patients were tested by both methods and received an ICD if either or both tests were positive. If both tests were negative, patients and their doctors decided whether to implant an ICD - the patients in the trial, mostly men at an average age of 65 years, had previous heart damage from coronary artery disease. None had previously experienced a cardiac arrhythmia, however. The trial was performed at 42 medical centers in the U.S., Germany and Israel. Patients were checked every six months for two years, and the overall rate of arrhythmic events was low, at 7% in the first year and 13% over two years. The event-rate was high when both tests were abnormal, lowest when the tests were normal and intermediate if one of the tests was abnormal. This result suggests an added predictive value from using both tests. The two tests differed in the time frame for which they were effective, with the MTWA test working as a predictive tool for patient outcomes as early as six months out, but not predictive after 12 or 15 months. The older test was not predictive until nine months, but remained predictive for two years. "The findings suggest the abnormalities in heart disease that increase the risk of arrhythmia are highly dynamic and change over time, which suggests annual screening may be beneficial," Rosenbaum said. The ABCD trial was primarily funded by St. Jude, with help from Cambridge Heart. How broader use of the Cambridge Heart device might affect the ICD market is the subject of divergent views, with some Wall Street analysts feeling it could shrink the pool of potential candidates. On the other hand, some feel better diagnostic tools will help accelerate a referral chain that's been flat in the wake of industry-rattling recalls last year. -By Jon Kamp, Dow Jones Newswires; 312-750-4129; firstname.lastname@example.org So I looked under news for CAMH and I noticed a very positive reaction the day of the press release--with the stk spiking to $3.90 before rolling over. A couple of news storys beneath the test story speaks of Wellpoint agreeing to use these tests in their treatments. Since this product is already on the market there's no need to worry about FDA review. You can read in the study-- the two methods were equally good but CAMH's was faster required less expertise and was less risky. Although on a 2 year out basis the old method may be more accurate I think this little stock should recover back above $3.50 -- That's 50 cents and I'm in for 3000 today @$3.00. peace~ stonedinvestor.