BiVACOR's Total Artificial Heart Receives FDA Breakthrough Device Designation

HUNTINGTON BEACH, Calif.--(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).
'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 CTO of BiVACOR
Share
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.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

41 minutes ago

• Forbes

Is Using Tech To Make Your Own Sparkling Water Worthwhile?

This portable system makes instant sparkling water Americans apparently love effervescence. According to Google's Gemini, the global sparkling water market was valued at about $42.62 billion last year. And it's projected to grow significantly, with estimates maxing it out at $108 billion by 2032. That's a lot of burps. So it shouldn't shock you that companies are flocking to get in on a piece of and Kirkland flavored sparkling water are mainstays in our home. The labeling implies there's no sugar – just essentially water and CO2. So it's way better for you than carbonated soda. And to me, it's so much tastier than plain drinking water, with all the used to have a Sodastream unit, in which we made our own seltzer water by carbonating ordinary tap water and adding flavor syrup. Somewhere along the way, it broke or stopped working. So we just went back to buying cans of the good stuff. Of course, this habit can get a little pricey. But more than anything, I really just don't like carrying the heavy cases of it in from the car, once we get home from I heard about Aerflo, which brings portability to the category. It's a single drinking water bottle in which the top holds a refillable CO2 canister -- making it a portable, zero-waste carbonation system. It's kind of an online sensation, I noticed, with reviewers posting how-to videos and hundreds of people joining in on the for $74, the system includes the portable carbonator, a reusable bottle, and a set of refillable CO₂ capsules that each make up to four bottles of sparkling water. It's compact enough to fit in your front-seat cup holder; is free of PFAS, BPA and microplastics; and is backed by a circular exchange model. Just drop used capsules in the mail using the prepaid return box, and Aerflo refills and recirculates them from its New Jersey facility. The company claims it's ideal for those who care about sustainability, simplicity and well-made gear. And it of course eliminates the need for counter-top appliances that carbonate two weeks, I've been trying Aerflo – along with friends and family. It's easy to use: You place the small CO2 canister in the lid, fill the water bottle, tighten the lid, press the lid in the marked spot three times or so, shake the container, and then repeat the last two steps three times. When the water has carbonated enough, it lets out a noise of air escaping. Then you remove the lid and drink. The entire process takes maybe 30 my brief experience, it works fine but the water does not get as carbonated as a can of Lacroix – no matter how much I've tried carbonating and even over-carbonating. Yet it generates a pleasing amount of bubbles that does the job. The company asks you not add syrup or flavoring, but you can just pour the water into a separate glass with syrup if you want. I added a lime wedge to the Aerflo bottle, and that worked fine. Also, I was only able to get two glasses of carbonation out of any canister – even once I started pressing the lid the minimum amount of times per glass. So I'm not sure how much savings it's truly offering over just buying cans of sparkling water. But it's definitely better for the environment than throwing out can after an industry clearly growing exponentially, it's good that there are options. I expect there will be more products like this emerging as time goes on. And that makes me feel bubbly.

USA Today

43 minutes ago

• USA Today

Investors brace for oil price spike, rush to havens after US bombs Iran nuclear sites

The U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear sites is expected to cause market reactions, potentially increasing oil prices and strengthening the U.S. dollar. Increased oil prices could lead to higher inflation and reduced consumer confidence, potentially impacting interest rate cuts. Market uncertainty remains high due to limited information regarding the extent of damage and future developments in the conflict. NEW YORK - A U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday could lead to a knee-jerk reaction in global markets when they reopen, sending oil prices higher and triggering a rush to safety, investors said, as they assessed how the latest escalation of tensions would ripple through the global economy. The attack, which was announced by President Donald Trump on social media site Truth Social, deepens U.S. involvement in the Middle East conflict. That was the question going into the weekend, when investors were mulling a host of different market scenarios. In the immediate aftermath of the announcement, they expected the U.S. involvement was likely to cause a selloff in equities and a possible bid for the dollar and other safe-haven assets when trading begins, but also said much uncertainty about the course of the conflict remained. While Trump called the attack "successful", few details were known. He was expected to address the nation later on Saturday. "I think the markets are going to be initially alarmed, and I think oil will open higher," said Mark Spindel, chief investment officer at Potomac River Capital. "We don't have any damage assessment and that will take some time. Even though he has described this as 'done', we're engaged. What comes next?" Spindel said. "I think the uncertainty is going to blanket the markets, as now Americans everywhere are going to be exposed. It's going to raise uncertainty and volatility, particularly in oil," he added. Spindel, however, said there was time to digest the news before markets open and said he was making arrangements to talk to other market participants. How will oil prices and inflation be affected? A key concern for markets would center around the potential impact of the developments in the Middle East on oil prices and thus on inflation. A rise in inflation could dampen consumer confidence and lessen the chance of near-term interest rate cuts. "This adds a complicated new layer of risk that we'll have to consider and pay attention to," said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer of Cresset Capital. "This is definitely going to have an impact on energy prices and potentially on inflation as well." While global benchmark Brent crude futures have risen as much as 18% since June 10, hitting a near five-month high of $79.04 on Thursday, the S&P 500 has been little changed, following an initial drop when Israel launched its attacks on Iran on June 13. Before the U.S. attack on Saturday, analysts at Oxford Economics modeled three scenarios, including a de-escalation of the conflict, a complete shutdown in Iranian oil production and a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, "each with increasingly large impacts on global oil prices." In the most severe case, global oil prices jump to around $130 per barrel, driving U.S. inflation near 6% by the end of this year, Oxford said in the note. "Although the price shock inevitably dampens consumer spending because of the hit to real incomes, the scale of the rise in inflation and concerns about the potential for second-round inflation effects likely ruin any chance of rate cuts in the U.S. this year," Oxford said in the note, which was published before the U.S. strikes. In comments after the announcement on Saturday, Jamie Cox, managing partner at Harris Financial Group, agreed oil prices would likely spike on the initial news. But Cox said he expected prices to likely level in a few days as the attacks could lead Iran to seek a peace deal with Israel and the United States. "With this demonstration of force and total annihilation of its nuclear capabilities, they've lost all of their leverage and will likely hit the escape button to a peace deal," Cox said. Economists warn that a dramatic rise in oil prices could damage a global economy already strained by Trump's tariffs. Still, any pullback in equities might be fleeting, history suggests. During past prominent instances of Middle East tensions coming to a boil, including the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2019 attacks on Saudi oil facilities, stocks initially languished but soon recovered to trade higher in the months ahead. On average, the S&P 500 slipped 0.3% in the three weeks following the start of conflict, but was 2.3% higher on average two months following the conflict, according to data from Wedbush Securities and CapIQ Pro. What will this mean for the US dollar? An escalation in the conflict could have mixed implications for the U.S. dollar, which has tumbled this year amid worries over diminished U.S. exceptionalism. In the event of U.S. direct engagement in the Iran-Israel war, the dollar could initially benefit from a safety bid, analysts said. "Do we see a flight to safety? That would signal yields going lower and the dollar getting stronger," said Steve Sosnick, chief market strategist at IBKR in Greenwich, Connecticut. "It's hard to imagine stocks not reacting negatively and the question is how much. It will depend on Iranian reaction and whether oil prices spike."

Atlantic

2 hours ago

• Atlantic

The Perverse Pride of Having Never Owned a Smartphone

This article was featured in the One Story to Read Today newsletter. Sign up for it here. Unlike nearly 98 percent of Americans under the age of 50, I don't have a smartphone. Actually, I've never had a smartphone. I've never called an Uber, never 'dropped a pin,' never used Venmo or Spotify or a dating app, never been in a group chat, never been jealous of someone on Instagram (because I've never been on Instagram). I used to feel ashamed of this, or rather, I was made to feel ashamed. For a long time, people either didn't believe me when I told them that I didn't have a smartphone, or reacted with a sort of embarrassed disdain, like they'd just realized I was the source of an unpleasant odor they'd been ignoring. But over the past two years, the reaction has changed. As the costs of being always online have become more apparent, the offline, air-gapped, inaccessible person has become an object of fascination, even envy. I have to confess that I've become a little smug about being a Never-Phoner—a holdout who somehow went from being left behind to ahead of the curve. How far ahead is difficult to say. I think I've avoided the worst effects of the smartphone: the stunned, preoccupied affect; the social atrophy; the hunched posture and long horizontal neck creases of the power scroller. I'm pretty sure my attention span is better than many others', based on the number of people I've observed in movie theaters who either check their phone every few minutes (about half) or scroll throughout the entire movie (always a handful). I will, by the way, let you know if I witness you engaging in similar behavior: If you look at your phone more than once an hour, I will call you an 'iPad baby'; if you put on an auto-generated Spotify playlist, I'll call you 'a hog at the slop trough.' Being phoneless has definitely had downsides. The pockets of every jacket I own are filled with maps scrawled on napkins, receipts, and utility bills torn in half to get me to unfamiliar places. I once missed an important job interview because I'd mislabeled the streets on my hastily sketched map. At the end of group dinners, when someone says, 'Everyone Venmo me $37.50,' the two 20s I offer are taken up like a severed ear. And I'd be lying if I said I didn't occasionally get wistful about all the banter I'm probably missing out on in group chats. Still, I've held out, though it's hard to articulate exactly why. The common anti-smartphone angles don't really land with me. The cranky 'Get off your darn phone!' seems a little too close to 'Get off my lawn!'—a knee-jerk aversion to new things is, if not the root of all evil, then the root of all dullness. The popular exhortations to 'be fully present in the moment' also seem misguided. I think the person utterly absorbed in an Instagram Reel as they shuffle into the crosswalk against the light, narrowly saved by the 'Ahem, excuse me' double-tap on the horn that bus drivers use to tell you that you're a split second from being reunited with your childhood dog, is probably living in the moment to a degree usually achieved only by Buddhist monks; the problem is just that it's the wrong moment. Read: Why are there so many 'alternative devices' all of a sudden? Mostly, I think the reason I don't opt for the more frictionless phone life is that I can't help noticing how much people have changed in the decade or so since smartphones have become ubiquitous. I used to marvel at the walking scroller's ability to sightlessly navigate the crowd, possibly using some kind of batlike sonar. But then, on occasion, whether out of a vague antisocial impulse (not infrequent) or simple necessity (as in navigating a narrow aisle at the grocery store), I'd play a game of chicken with one of these people, walking directly toward them to see when they'd veer off. A surprising percentage of the time, they didn't, and after the collision, they'd always blame me. Eventually, I realized they're not navigating anything; they've just outsourced responsibility for their corporeal self to everyone else around them, much as many people have outsourced their memory to their phone. You're probably saying, well, at least they're on foot, and not driving a car. But many people look at their phones behind the wheel too. At a four-way stop, oftentimes the driver who yields to the crossing vehicle will steal a half-second look at their phone while they wait. At red lights, I see people all the time who don't look up from their phone when the light turns green—they just depress the gas when the car in front of them moves. Less hazardous but somehow more disturbing are the people I see scrolling in parked cars late at night. When I glance over—startled by the sudden appearance of a disembodied, underlit face on an otherwise deserted block—these people typically glare back, looking aggrieved and put-upon, as if I've broken a contract I didn't know I'd agreed to. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt; maybe they share a bed with a light sleeper, or have six annoying kids bouncing off the walls at home. But it happens often enough that I've come to think of them as the embodiment of contemporary alienation. Twenty-five years ago, we had Bowling Alone; today, we have scrolling alone. Of course, a phone is just a medium, no different on some level from a laptop or a book, and the blanket 'phone bad' position elides the fact that people could be doing a nearly infinite number of things on them, many of them productive. The guy hunched intently over his phone at the gym might be reading the latest research on novel cancer treatments. But probably not. Once, a guy at my gym, whose shoulder I looked over as he used the stationary bike in front of me, was talking to an AI-anime-schoolgirl chatbot on his phone. She was telling him, in a very small, breathy voice, how she'd been in line at the store earlier, and when someone had cut in front of her, she'd politely spoken up and asked them to go to the back of the line. 'That's great, baby,' he said. 'I'm so proud of you for standing up for yourself.' This is more or less typical of the stuff I spy people doing on their phone—self-abasing, a devitalized substitute for some real-life activity, and incredibly demoralizing, at least in the eyes of a phoneless naif. Many times, I've watched friends open a group chat, sigh, and go through a huge backlog of unread messages, mechanically dispensing heart eyes and laughing emoji—friendship as a data-entry gig you aren't paid for, yet can't quit. I have a girlfriend, but one of my friends often lets me watch as he uses the dating apps. Like most men (including myself), he overestimates his attractiveness while underestimating the attractiveness of the women he swipes on. 'I guess I'll give her a chance,' he'll say, swiping right on a woman whom ancient civilizations would've gone to war over. As long as this friend does his daily quota of swipes, he's 'out there and on the market,' he tells me, and there's 'nothing more he can do.' Yet we go to the same coffee shop, and several times a week, we see a woman who seems to be his perfect match. Each day, he comes in, reads his little autofiction book, then takes out his laptop to peck away at a little autofiction manuscript. Each day, she comes in, reads her little autofiction book, then takes out her laptop to peck away at what we've theorized must also be a little autofiction manuscript. Sometimes they sit, by chance, at adjacent tables, so close that I'm sure he can smell her perfume. On these occasions, I try to encourage him from across the room—I raise my eyebrows suggestively, I subtly thrust my hips under the table. After she leaves, I go over and ask why he didn't talk to her; he reacts as if I suggested a self-appendectomy. 'Maybe I'll see her on the apps,' he says, of the woman he's just seen in real life for the 300th time. I don't blame him. He's 36 and has only ever dated through apps. Meeting people in public does seem exponentially harder than it was just 10 years ago. The bars seem mostly full of insular friend groups and people nervously awaiting their app dates. (Few things are more depressing than witnessing the initial meeting of app users. 'Taylor … ? Hi, Riley.' The firm salesmanlike handshake, the leaning hug with feet kept at maximum distance, both speaking over each other in their job-interview voices.) I often see people come into a bar, order a single drink, sit looking at their phone for 20 to 30 minutes, and then leave. Maybe they're being ghosted. Or maybe they're doing exactly what they intended to do. But they frequently look disappointed; I imagine that their visit was an attempt at something—giving serendipity an opportunity to tap them on the shoulder and say, Here you go, here's the encounter that will fix you. Witnessing all of this, I sense that a huge amount of social and libidinal energy has been withdrawn from the real world. Where has it all gone? Data centers? The comments? Many critics of smartphones say that phones have made people narcissists, but I don't think that's right. Narcissists need other people; the emotional charge of engagement is their lifeblood. What the oblivious walking scroller, the driving texter, the unrealistic dating-app swiper have in common is almost the opposite—a quality closer to the insularity of solipsism, the belief that you're the one person who actually exists and that other people are fundamentally unreal. Solipsism, though, is a form of isolation, and to become accustomed to it is to make yourself a kind of recluse, capable of mimicking normalcy yet only truly comfortable shuffling among your feeds, muttering darkly to yourself. I know that my refusal to get a smartphone is an implicit admission that I would become just as addicted to it as anyone else. Recently, my girlfriend handed me her phone and told me to put on music for sex; a few minutes later, she leaned over to see what was taking so long. I had been looking at the Wikipedia page for soft-serve ice cream. I have no idea why I was looking at that or even how I'd gotten there. It's like the sudden availability of unlimited information had sent me into a fugue state, and I just started swiping and scrolling. I guess I looked into the void and fell in. I won't lie; it felt kind of nice, giving up.