Boston Sci to drop $435M on Swiss heart valve maker

Boston Scientific will pick up Symetis' TAVI systems, including the Acurate Neo Valve. (Symetis)

Boston Scientific will pony up $435 million upfront to acquire Switzerland’s Symetis, which makes transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) devices.

Symetis’ TAVI systems are used to treat high-risk patients with stenosis, or narrowing, of the aortic valve. The Acurate TA and Acurate neo TF systems are CE-marked and sold in Europe and other markets outside the U.S. The company highlights the implants’ self-seating and self-sealing design, which prevent leaking around their edges after they are installed. Symetis has a next-gen valve system in clinical trials.

The deal comes nearly four months after Boston Sci announced it would acquire Neovasc’s tissue processing technology for $75 million in cash. The tech produces components used in transcatheter heart valves, including Boston Sci’s Lotus device.

RELATED: Med tech IPOs fall into place: Penumbra, Symetis, Novocure and Adesto

The Acurate systems will join Boston Sci’s Lotus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) systems, which recently hit a snag; the company announced in February that it was recalling both the Lotus and the Lotus Edge from clinical and commercial sites due to problems with the devices’ locking mechanism. The devices were recalled last August and in November 2014 for similar issues.

The recall will set back the U.S. release by about six months, and the devicemaker downgraded the sales expectations for its structural heart business by $50 million, according to EP Vantage.

Boston Sci has been fighting an international patent battle with Edwards Lifesciences over the sealing technology used in their TAVRs. Boston Sci first sued Edwards in October 2015 in Germany. Edwards countersued, and Boston Sci brought the patent dispute stateside, filing suit in California and Delaware.

Earlier this month, a U.K. patent court invalidated one Boston Sci patent but ruled that Edwards had infringed on a second patent. And a German court found that Boston Sci violated one Edwards patent and that Edwards had infringed on two Boston Sci patents.