For personal use only

Transcription

1 REVA SYMPOSIUM SHOWCASES CLINICAL DATA Sydney, Australia and San Diego, California (Thursday, 24 May AEST) REVA Medical, Inc. (ASX: RVA) ( REVA or the Company ), a leader in bioresorbable polymer technologies for vascular applications, sponsored a symposium on May 23, 2018, at the Paris Course on Revascularization ( EuroPCR ) entitled FANTOM: the new vision of BRS performance, which highlighted 24-month data from the Company s FANTOM II clinical trial. Dr. Gregg Stone from the Columbia University Medical Center and the Cardiovascular Research Foundation and Dr. Ulf Landmesser from Charite Berlin chaired the symposium. Dr. Alexandre Abizaid, Director of Invasive Cardiology at Institute Dante Pazzanese of Cardiology in Sao Paulo, Brazil, provided a review of the 24-month data from the FANTOM II trial, which included a low 5.0% rate of Major Adverse Cardiac Events ( MACE ) which demonstrates a strong safety profile for Fantom. Dr. Abizaid also discussed the Company s expansion trials in long lesions, multi-vessel disease and acute myocardial infarction. Dr. Gregor Leibundgut from Kantonsspital Baselland in Liestal, Switzerland provided a review of Tyrocore, REVA s proprietary polymer, which is different from the polylactic acid polymers used to construct first generation scaffolds such as Absorb. Tyrocore is the foundation for both Fantom, REVA s current commercial product and Fantom Encore, the Company s third generation product. The use of Tyrocore allows Fantom and Fantom Encore to offer improved features including a thinner strut profile, improved ease-of-use, and full x-ray visibility. Dr. Leibundgut also announced that Fantom Encore will have 95, 105 and 115 micron strut profiles for the 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5 mm diameters, respectively. The sequentially larger strut profiles for the three sizes are designed to achieve the thinnest strut profile possible while optimizing strength for each scaffold diameter. The 95 micron strut profile on the 2.5 mm diameter is the smallest strut profile of any commercially available BRS. Dr. Neils Holm from the Skejby-Aarhus University Hospital in Aarhus, Denmark provided a review of the 24- month Optical Coherence Tomography ( OCT ) sub-study results. The OCT imaging results in a subset of patients treated with Fantom demonstrated vessel patency (maintenance of a wide open artery) and sustained healing with 100% strut coverage at 24 months. Dr. Matthias Lutz from Universitatsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein in Kiel, Germany presented a selection of patient case reviews as well as an introduction to the Company s implant technique, referred to as the REVA Technique. The presentation materials delivered today at the symposium are attached hereto. Copies of the presentations are also posted under the Investor Relations section of REVA s website at HEAD OFFICE: 5751 Copley Drive, San Diego, CA (858) (858) (FAX) AUSTRALIAN OFFICE: Suite 4, Level 14, 6 O Connell Street, Sydney NSW ARBN REVA Medical, Inc., is a foreign company incorporated in Delaware, USA, whose stockholders have limited liability

2 REVA Medical, Inc. ASX Announcement Page 2 About Fantom and Fantom Encore Fantom and Fantom Encore are sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds developed as an alternative to metallic stents for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Scaffolds provide restoration of blood flow, support the artery through the healing process, and then disappear (or resorb ) from the body over a period of time. This resorption is intended to allow the return of natural movement and function of the artery. Fantom and Fantom Encore are the only bioresorbable scaffolds made from Tyrocore, REVA s proprietary tyrosine-derived polymer designed specifically for vascular scaffold applications. Tyrocore is inherently radiopaque, making Fantom and Fantom Encore the first and only bioresorbable scaffolds that are visible under fluoroscopy. Fantom and Fantom Encore are designed with thin struts while maintaining strength and with distinct ease-of-use features such as expansion with one continuous inflation. About REVA Medical REVA Medical is a medical device company focused on the development and commercialization of bioresorbable polymer technologies for vascular applications. The Company s lead products are the Fantom and Fantom Encore bioresorbable vascular scaffolds for the treatment of coronary artery disease. REVA is located in San Diego, California, USA and employs over 50 people in the U.S. and Europe. Fantom, Fantom Encore, and Tyrocore are trademarks of REVA Medical, Inc. Forward-Looking Statements This announcement contains or may contain forward-looking statements that are based on management's beliefs, assumptions, and expectations and on information currently available to management. All statements that are not statements of historical fact, including those statements that address future operating plans or performance and events or developments that may occur in the future, are forward-looking statements, such as those statements regarding the projections and timing surrounding commercial operations and sales, clinical trials, pipeline product development, and future financings. No undue reliance should be placed on forward-looking statements. Although management believes forward-looking statements are reasonable as and when made, forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to vary materially from those expressed in forward-looking statements, including the risks and uncertainties that are described in the "Risk Factors" section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC ) on March 7, 2018, and as updated in our periodic reports thereafter. Any forward-looking statements in this announcement speak only as of the date when made. REVA does not assume any obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. United States Australia Australia Investor & Media Enquiries: Investor Enquiries: Media Enquiries: REVA Medical, Inc. Inteq Limited Buchan Consulting Brandi Roberts Kim Jacobs Rebecca Wilson Chief Financial Officer Andrew Cohen Cheryl Liberatore Director, Communications ir@revamedical.com HEAD OFFICE: 5751 Copley Drive, San Diego, CA (858) (858) (FAX) AUSTRALIAN OFFICE: Suite 4, Level 14, 6 O Connell Street, Sydney NSW ARBN REVA Medical, Inc., is a foreign company incorporated in Delaware, USA, whose stockholders have limited liability

3 Exhibit 99.1 New 24-month data from the FANTOM II clinical trial Dr. Alexandre Abizaid Instituto Dante Pazzanese de Cardiologia Sao Paulo, Brazil 1

4 Potential conflicts of interest Speaker's name: Alexandre Abizaid, MD I have the following potential conflicts of interest to report: None 2

5 Second Generation Fantom Bioresorbable Scaffold Scaffold Design Tyrocore Sirolimus Delivery System Thin struts: 125 µm Enhanced radial strength Minimal recoil Single-step balloon inflation 0.75 expansion over nominal (3.0 mm) Radiopaque Provides strength during healing Vessel uncaged in one year Complete resorption in ~4 years First anti-proliferative agent used in drug eluting stents Highly lipophilic with broad therapeutic window Demonstrated across multiple clinical studies and drug eluting stents Semi-compliant nylon balloon High 18 atm rated burst pressure Rapid exchange 1.35 mm crossing profile (c) molekuul 3

6 FANTOM II Trial Safety & Performance Study for the Fantom Bioresorbable Scaffold 4

7 FANTOM II Study Investigators Australia Dr. Muller, Dr. Jepson, Dr. Walters Belgium Dr. De Bruyne Brazil Dr. Abizaid, Dr. Costa, Dr. Chamie, Dr. Perin Denmark Dr. Christiansen, Dr. Lassen, Dr. Okkels-Jensen Germany Dr. Weber-Albers, Dr. Naber, Dr. Achenbach, Dr. Frey, Dr. Lutz, Dr. Kische, Dr. Ince, Dr. Brachmann Netherlands Dr. Amoroso, Dr. Wykrzykowska, Dr. Daemen Poland Dr. Dudek, Dr. Kochman, Dr. Koltowski, Dr. Lesiak, Dr. Wojdyla France Dr. Carrié, Dr. Chevalier, Dr. Fajadet, Dr. Collet 5

8 FANTOM II Study Design and Endpoints Study Design Safety and Performance Trial 240 patients in 2 cohorts 2.5mm to 3.5mm vessels Lesion length 20mm Angiographic follow-up Cohort A: 6 months 117 Pts. Cohort B: 9 months 123 Pts. Serial imaging sub-studies Cohort A: 24 months (25 Patients) Cohort B: 48 months (25 Patients) Study Population N= 240 Patients 28 Clinical Centers Participating Cohort A (117 Patients) 6 Mo Clinical Follow-up (MACE) 6 Mo Angiographic Follow-up (LLL) Includes OCT & IVUS 24 months Annual Clinical Follow-up (5 yrs) Cohort B (123 Patients) 6 Mo Clinical Follow-up (MACE) 9 Mo Angiographic Follow-up (LLL) Includes OCT & IVUS 48 months Annual Clinical Follow-up (5 yrs) 6

9 FANTOM II Cohorts A & B Patient Flow and Baseline Characteristics Study Population N= 240 Patients 28 Clinical Centers Patient Characteristics (N=240) Patient Age (average years) 62.7 ± & 9 Month Follow-up Clinical & Imaging Cohort A: 6 months Cohort B: 9 months 12 Month Follow-up Clinical Annual Follow-up Through 5 years Angiographic (cohort A N=100) (cohort B N=105) OCT (cohort A N=73) (cohort B N= 80) IVUS (cohort A N=45) (cohort B N=27) 24 Month Follow-up Clinical Imaging Sub-set Male 70.4% Diabetes 23.8% Current/Former Smoker 59.6% Hypertension 73.8% Hyperlipidemia 70.8% Prior PCI 43.8% Prior CABG 2.9% Prior MI 26.3% Recent LVEF <40% 0.0% (N=231) 7

10 FANTOM II Cohorts A & B Lesion Characteristics and Procedural Outcomes Lesion Characteristics Target Lesion Location (n=238) 1 LAD 48.7% (116) LCX 31.3% (74) RCA 20.2% (48) ACC/AHA Lesion Class (n=238) 1 Type A 18.5% (44) Procedural Outcomes Acute Procedural Outcomes Acute Technical Success (1) 95.8% Acute Procedural Success (2) 99.1% Clinical Procedural Success (3) 99.6% (1) Defined as successful delivery and deployment of the intended scaffold in the intended lesion without device related complications. (2) Defined as acute technical success (see definition above), resulting in a residual stenosis of 50 percent with no immediate (in-hospital) MACE. (3) Defined as acute procedural success (see definition above), with no MACE thirty days post-intervention and with a final diameter stenosis 50 percent. Type B1 49.6% (118) Type B2 29.4% (70) Type C 2.5% (6) (1) Two pre-procedure angiograms were not available 8

11 FANTOM II Cohorts A & B Previously Presented Results Components of 6-Month Primary Endpoint (modified ITT): non- Hierarchical 6 Month (n = 240) 12 Months (n = 240) MACE 2.1% (5) 4.2% (10) Cardiac Death 0.4% (1) 1 0.8% (2) 1,2 MI 1.3% (3) 1.3% (3) Clinically Driven TLR 0.8% (2) 2.5% (6) * As adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee (1) One patient died between 0-6 months. Exact cause of death not determined. Patient died at home 4 weeks after subsequent TAVI procedure. (2) One death occurred between 6-12 months. Patient was reported to have died of COPD by treating physician but cardiac relation could not be excluded. 9

12 FANTOM II Cohorts A & B Previously Presented Results Components of 6-Month Primary Endpoint (modified ITT): non- Hierarchical 6 Month (n = 240) 12 Months (n = 240) 24 Months (n=240) MACE 2.1% (5) 4.2% (10) 5.0% (12) Cardiac Death 0.4% (1) 1 0.8% (2) 1,2 0.8 % (2) MI 1.3% (3) 1.3% (3) 1.7% (4) 3 Clinically Driven TLR 0.8% (2) 2.5% (6) 2.9% (7) As adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee (1) One patient died between 0-6 months. Exact cause of death not determined. Patient died at home 4 weeks after subsequent TAVI procedure. (2) One death occurred between 6-12 months. Patient was reported to have died of COPD by treating physician but cardiac relation could not be excluded. (3) Three target vessel related MI and one non-target vessel related MI. 10

13 FANTOM II Cohorts A & B 24-Month Scaffold Thrombosis Definite or Probable Scaffold Thrombosis (N = 240 Patients) Acute (0 1 day) 0.0% (0) Sub-acute (2 30 days) 0.4% (1) 1 Late ( days) 0.0% (0) Very Late (>365 days)** 0.4% (1) 2 As adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee ** Maximum day=761 days (1) Target lesion was not fully covered with scaffold. Significant untreated stenosis was present at index procedure. Patient returned 5 days post procedure with a scaffold thrombosis (2) Distal segment of scaffold was in a 2.0mm vessel and the scaffold had significant malaposition that was not corrected 11

14 FANTOM II Angiographic QCA Results In-Scaffold Analysis Baseline (n=238) 1 Cohort A 6 Mo. (n=100) Cohort A 24 Mo. 3 (Subset n=36) RVD (mm) 2.71 ± ± 0.36 MLD (mm) 0.82 ± ± 0.41 Diameter Stenosis (%) 69.5 ± ± ± ± ± 17.9 Acute Gain (mm) 1.68 ± 0.41 Acute Recoil (%) 4.0 ± Mean LLL (mm) 0.25 ± ± 0.49 In-Segment Analysis Mean LLL (mm) 0.17 ± ± 0.49 (1) Baseline angiographic data was not available for two enrolled patients (2) N = 156 patients available for recoil analysis (3) Average follow up days=744 12

15 FANTOM II Long Term Follow-up Case Sample Index - Pretreatment Index Post Implant Follow-up 6 Mo. Follow-up 24 Mo. Procedure Details Pre-dilation performed BSC Maverick 2.5 x 15mm balloon Fantom Scaffold implant 3.0 x 18mm Fantom deployed at 14atm Post Dilation Performed 3.25 x 6mm NC Sprinter to 16atm 13

16 FANTOM II Long Term Follow-up Case Sample Index Post Implant Follow-up 6 Mo. Follow-up 24 Mo. 14

17 Fantom Global Clinical Trial Program Enrollment Complete In Follow Up FANTOM I First-in-human safety study (n=7) Year 3 FANTOM II Cohorts A&B Multi-center safety and performance study (n=240) Year 2 Enrolling FANTOM II Cohort C Long lesion and multiple vessel study (n=30-50) enrolling FANTOM STEMI Single center pilot study in STEMI (n=20) enrolling FANTOM Post Market Trial European post-market trial (n=1,500) enrolling Planning FANTOM III (US pivotal trial) Multi-center RCT vs. metallic DES (n=1,800-2,200) planning FANTOM Asia Multi-center RCT vs. metallic DES (n= ) planning 15

18 FANTOM Program Clinical Summary Only BRS with unique Tyrocore polymer Thin struts, radiopaque, enhanced radial force, biocompatible Sustained safety and efficacy through 24-months: Low MACE Rate (5.0%) Low rate of VLST (0.4%) Vessel lumen is maintained through 24 months: No change in average late lumen loss No evidence of chronic scaffold recoil 16

19 Exhibit 99.2 Tyrocore: a proprietary polymer uniquely designed for vascular scaffolds PD Dr. med Gregor Leibundgut Medizinische Universitätsklinik Kantonsspital Baselland Liestal, Switzerland 1

20 Potential conflicts of interest Speaker's name : Gregor Leibundgut I have the following potential conflicts of interest to report: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: REVA Medical 2

21 Novel Tyrocore Polymer Overcomes First Generation BRS Limitations Limited use of first generation BRS due to poor usability and clinical outcomes. The Tyrocore bioresorbable polymer is uniquely designed for vascular scaffold applications. Fantom, a second generation BRS made from Tyrocore, offers substantial improvements over first generation BRS. 3

22 Tyrocore Polymer Designed for Vascular Scaffolds Tyrocore Composition Features Biocompatibility derived from tyrosine amino acid Iodinated desamino-tyrosine polycarbonate Polylactic acid diol Strength polycarbonate phenyl ring structure (Iodinated diphenol) Radiopacity covalently bound iodine to polycarbonate backbone Ductility High molecular weight and composition provide ductility Flexibility Monomer molecules are linked with propane diol for flexibility 4

23 Tyrocore Offers Improved Properties Compared to PLLA Properties of Tyrocore versus PLLA Radiopacity Attribute Tyrocore PLLA 1 Benefit Ultimate Tensile Strength Elongation at Break (Ductility) MPa MPa Thinner struts 2 Radial strength Longitudinal strength % 2-10% Single-step inflation >50 Larger expansion range X-Ray Visible Yes No Accurate placement Absorb Fantom DES A single Fantom scaffold contains < 1% of the iodine found in 1 ml of contrast media 1) Poly(Lactic acid): Synthesis, Structure, Properties, and Applications. Edited by R.Auras, L-T.Lim, S.E.M.Selke, H.Tsuji John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; p.141 5

24 170 Strut Thickness Fantom Improved Performance Radial Strength Recoil -33% 1.5 1/ % 6.8% % µm N/mm % 2% 2.3% 2.0% % Tyrocore s high tensile strength enables Fantom to have thinner struts while improving strength and reducing recoil 1) Includes coating. Ormiston, J. New BRS Platforms. Presented EBC Rotterdam 2016.; Foin, N. Biomechanical Assessment of Bioresorbable Devices. Presented CRT ) Bench testing on 3.0 mm scaffolds in water at 37 C. Radial strength measured at 15% compression. Tests performed by and data on file at REVA Medical. 6

25 Fantom Resists Longitudinal Compression Longitudinal Stent Compression Absorb Magmaris Fantom A force of ~0.2 N was found during recrossing with a balloon catheter Leibundgut G et al. - unpublished data 7

26 Tyrocore Benign Degradation and Resorption Degradation > 80% molecular weight loss Vessel uncaged in 1 year desamino-tyrosine polycarbonate Tyrocore Degradation Polylactic acid diol Resorption (mass loss) Results in reduced radiopacity over time Completed in ~ 4 years Iodinated diphenol Hydrolysis Polylactic acid diol Enzymes Cell metabolism Radiolabel ADME study shows I 2 DAT is safely excreted I 2 DAT Water & Carbon dioxide 8

27 Fantom Provides Support During Vessel Healing and Degrades in One Year 150% Fantom Radial Strength During Degradation 120% 90% 60% 30% 0% 0-1 month Increase in strength due to hydration 0-3 months Structural support during critical vessel healing period 0-12 months Degradation and vessel uncaged in one year Complete resorption within ~4 years Months 9

28 Tyrocore Biocompatibility for Excellent Vessel Healing 0-3 Months Fantom struts are covered with mature endothelium Substantially fewer adherent platelets than the Absorb control Fantom Absorb 4-12 Months Fantom shows no adverse reactions as vessel uncages No calcification at the interface between the tissue and the scaffold, which is observed with Absorb 3-month endothelialization in rabbit artery Months Fantom final degradation and benign resorption 6-month degradation in porcine artery 10

29 Tyrocore versus PLLA Degradation and Resorption 0-12 Months - Degradation Absorb has an early peak of lactic acid associated with coating degradation Fantom has minimal lactic acid Arterial Wall Lactic Acid Concentration during Scaffold Degradation Computational Model Months - Resorption Absorb has a large lactic acid peak between 18 and 42 months associated with scaffold resorption Fantom lactic acid concentration is two orders of magnitude lower than Absorb during scaffold resorption Lactic acid concentration (mm) 1.2e e e e -4 Absorb Fantom 0.0e +0 11

30 Fantom Encore - Third Generation Bioresorbable Scaffold Thinner Struts (again) without Compromising Radial Strength Strut Thickness (µm) Absorb 1 Magmaris 1 Fantom Fantom Encore 2.5 mm 157 µm n/a 125 µm 95 µm 3.0 mm 157 µm 166 µm 125 µm 105 µm 0.25 N/mm 0.14 Radial Strength Higher is better 3.5 mm 157 µm 166 µm 125 µm 115 µm 0.1 No changes to Tyrocore polymer composition or scaffold design Improved polymer processing and manufacturing techniques 1) Includes coating. Ormiston, J. New BRS Platforms. Presented EBC Rotterdam 2016.; Foin, N. Biomechanical Assessment of Bioresorbable Devices. Presented CRT ) Bench testing on 3.0 mm scaffolds in water at 37 C. Radial strength measured at 15% compression. Tests performed by and data on file at REVA Medical. 12

31 Conclusions Tyrocore is a new and differentiated polymer for vascular scaffolds. Fantom offers substantial improvements over first generation BRS: Reduced strut thickness Increased radial strength Larger expansion range Radiopacity Improved vessel healing Fantom Encore has the thinnest struts of any bioresorbable scaffold 1 without compromising radial strength or radiopacity. Tyrocore s strength, biocompatibility, and safety profile has been demonstrated in pre-clinical and clinical studies. 1) 95 µm strut thickness in the 2.5 mm diameter size 13

32 Exhibit 99.3 REVA FANTOM II Performance and healing patterns by OCT Two-year serial follow-up Niels Ramsing Holm Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark E MIL NIELSEN HOLCK, JO SIMONSEN, DIDIER CARRIÉ, NOBERT FREY, MATTHIAS LUTZ, JOACHIM WEBER- ALBERS, DARIUS DUDEK, BERNARD CHEVALIER, JOUKE DIJKSTRA, JENS LASSEN, JEFFREY ANDERSON, JOEST DAEMEN, EVALD HØJ CHRISTIANSEN, ALEXANDRE ABIZAID, NIELS RAMSING HOLM On behalf of the FANTOM II investigators

33 The FANTOM BRS Desaminotyrosine based polycarbonate backbone Strut thickness 125µm Sirolimus eluting for 3 months Full resorption within 3-4 years PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

34 FANTOM angiographic signature Radiopacity Covalently bound iodine in the polycarbonate backbone PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

35 FANTOM BRS by 3D OCT 3D OCT by St Jude OPTIS PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

36 FANTOM OCT signature Baseline 6 month FU 24 month FU PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

37 REVA FANTOM II OCT analysis OCT billede af baseline og FU strut PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

38 Customized analysis Stent strut Lumen Abluminal stent Luminal stent PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT QCU-CMS, Leiden University Medical Center, The Netherlands

39 REVA FANTOM II OCT analysis optimized and validated by micro-ct Strut thickness by micro-ct PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT SKEJBY

40 REVA FANTOM II OCT analysis optimized and validated by micro-ct PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

41 REVA FANTOM II Baseline FU PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

42 FANTOM in bifurcations Micro-CT PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

43 Patient flow chart PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

44 Analysis flow chart TLR PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

45 Mean scaffold area 7.32±1.14 mm ±1.19 mm ±1.28 mm 2 PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

46 Minimal scaffold area 6.14±1.09 mm ±1.16 mm ±1.17 mm 2 PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

47 Mean lumen area 7.09±1.38 mm ±1.32 mm ±0.19 mm 2 PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

48 Minimal lumen area 5.58±1.09 mm ±1.10 mm ±1.21 mm 2 PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

49 Malapposition p<0.001 p= % [0.0;4.6] 0.0% [0.0;0.0] 0.0% [0.0;0.0] PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

50 Extra-stent lumen 24 months follow-up cohort baseline 6 months 24 months Extra stent lumen area (mm 2 ) 0.04[0.03;0.19] 0.01[0.00;0.03] 0.00[0.00;0.01] p<0.001 p=0.05 PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

51 Extra-stent lumen No evaginations or late scaffold detachment after 24 months Example in permanent DES. Radu et al. EHJ 2017 PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

52 Neointimal area Blue area: Neointimal area 24 months follow-up cohort 6 months 24 months p-value Mean neointimal area (mm 2 ) 1.20± ±0.37 <0.001 PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

53 Neointimal thickness 24 month follow-up cohort 6 months 24 months p-value Mean neointimal thickness (µm) 51[36;67] 79[53;110] 0.01 PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT Median (IQR)

54 Strut coverage 98.6% [96.5;99.7] 100% [100;100] Strut-level results in 24m follow-up cohort PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

55 Conclusion The Fantom BRS show promising healing patterns after 24 months: Complete strut coverage Slight decrease in lumen area due to limited additional neointimal growth mainly in cases with small acute MLA No stent area reduction no late recoil Excellent resolution of acute malapposition and still no acquired malapposition and no evaginations detected after 24 months PCI Research Aarhus University Hospital, Skejby Denmark FANTOM II OCT

56 Exhibit 99.4 Fantom Encore case review and introduction to the REVA Technique Dr. med Matthias Lutz Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein Kiel, Germany 1

57 Potential conflicts of interest Speaker's name : Matthias, Lutz, Kiel I have the following potential conflicts of interest to report: Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: Abbott, REVA Medical

58 Implant Technique Matters Bioresorbable Scaffolds require careful consideration of implant technique ABSORB IV Events reduced with good implant technique 1 Proper technique is shown to improve BRS outcomes in ABSORB IV Thrombosis has been associated with implant technique in the BVS experience Most frequent causes of Early Scaffold Thrombosis with BVS 2 Cause Frequency N=17 Malapposition 24% Incomplete lesion coverage 18% Underdeployment 12% 1) Stone, G. Outcomes of Absorb Bioresorbable Scaffolds with Improved Technique in an Expanded Patient Population: The ABSORB IV Randomized Trial. Presented TCT ) Sotomi Y, et al. Possible mechanical causes of scaffold thrombosis: insights from case reports with intracoronary imaging. EI 2017;12:

59 PSP is a Partial Solution PSP Implant Technique Prepare the lesion Sizing Post-dilate 4

60 PSP is a Partial Solution PSP Implant Technique Prepare the lesion Sizing Post-dilate Patient and lesion selection not considered Focuses on the procedure steps rather than the clinical outcome Neglects scaffold expansion 5

61 The REVA Technique Improvement REVA Technique Right patient, right lesion Excellent preparation Vessel to scaffold sizing Apposition and expansion 6

62 The REVA Technique Improvement REVA Technique Right patient, right lesion Excellent preparation Vessel to scaffold sizing Apposition and expansion Includes patient selection Describes desired clinical outcome at each step Matches scaffold to anatomy Focuses on long term patient outcome 7

63 Selecting the Right Patients and Lesions 8

64 Fantom Encore (95 Micron) Case Patient Demographics/History: 54 y/o male Previously treated LAD bifurcation CVRF: smoking 40 py, HLP, family history CAD Lesion Characteristics: Marginal Branch Lesion type B AVD: 2.6 mm (QCA) Length: 21 mm (QCA) Estimated stenosis: 90% [VIDEO] 9

65 Excellent Preparation Lesion Preparation General Guidelines The lesion should be pre-dilated with a non-compliant balloon using 1:1 sizing The desire is to have a stent-like result after pre-dilation Prefer to observe <20% residual stenosis Key: Evaluate the performance of the pre-dilation balloon during inflation Did the balloon completely inflate at low pressure? Is the balloon uniform in shape when inflated? Does the lesion appear to be highly fibrotic of calcified? Is the residual stenosis within the target window? 10

66 Lesion Preparation [VIDEO] 2.5 x 20 mm NC 18 atm 10-15% residual stenosis AVD 2.6 x 20 mm 11

67 Vessel to Scaffold Sizing Scaffold Size Selection General Guidelines Must select scaffold with consideration expansion specifications Vessel to scaffold sizing guide Vessel Diameters Scaffold Size Maximum Diameter 2.50 to 2.75 mm 2.5 mm 3.25 mm 2.75 to 3.25 mm 3.0 mm 3.75 mm 3.25 to 3.75 mm 3.5 mm 4.0 mm Note: Side branch expansion capability up to 2.5mm in 3.5 mm scaffold 12

68 Vessel to Scaffold Sizing Scaffold Size Selection General Guidelines Must select scaffold with consideration expansion specifications Vessel to scaffold sizing guide Vessel Diameters Scaffold Size Maximum Diameter 2.50 to 2.75 mm 2.5 mm 3.25 mm 2.75 to 3.25 mm 3.0 mm 3.75 mm 3.25 to 3.75 mm 3.5 mm 4.0 mm Note: Side branch expansion capability up to 2.5mm in 3.5 mm scaffold Case Sample Vessel Measurements Average Vessel Diameter = 2.6 mm Maximum Vessel Diameter = 2.6 mm Lesion length = 21 mm Fantom Encore Selected = 2.5 x 24 mm 13

69 Fantom Encore Delivery and Positioning Fantom Encore Deployment Single Step inflation directly to 12 atm [VIDEO] 14

70 Apposition and Expansion Post Dilatation General Guidelines Fantom should be post-dilated with a non-compliant 1:1 balloon sizing at a minimum Need to consider actual implant diameter and compliance values 1:1 sizing may not be sufficient if high initial deployment pressure was used Post dilation should be at 16 atm or more with the NC balloon Maximum expansion = 0.75 mm above nominal The desire clinical outcome is to have: 0% residual stenosis with full scaffold expansion No scaffold malaposition Should consider adjunctive imaging such as OCT 15

71 Final Angiographic Result Post-Dilatation 2.5 x 20 atm 2 times covering proximal and distal edge [VIDEO] 2.5 x 24 mm Fantom Encore 16

72 Excellent OCT Result [VIDEO] 2.5 x 24 mm Fantom Encore 17

73 Conclusions The REVA Technique expands on PSP Focuses on patient selection and clinical outcomes Tyrocore enables Fantom Encore 3 rd Generation BRS improvements Reduced strut thickness 95 µm struts in the 2.5 mm diameter size Improved flexibility and deliverability Radiopaque for accurate placement Enhanced radial force 18