L OS A NGELES N EW Y ORK S AN F RANCISCO B OSTON S …

Wedbush Securities does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. Thus, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision. Please see page 32 of this report for analyst certification and important disclosure information.

Car

dio

vasc

ula

r, D

evic

es a

nd

Reg

ener

ativ

e R

esea

rch

Not

e Equity

Research

World Heart Corporation (WHRT)

Levacor Designed for Improved Blood Handling but Awaiting Clinical Data; Initiating Coverage with a NEUTRAL Rating

WorldHeart is developing a full-flow LVAD (Levacor), designed to address the traditional market of Class IV Heart Failure patients, as well as a partial flow device (MiVAD), designed to address the much larger market of Class IIIb patients. WorldHeart hopes that its devices will benefit from uniquely robust durability and reduced rate of bleeding and stroke.

Source: Nasdaq.com

52-Week Range $1.70 - $8.63 Shares Outstand. 17.6 million Avg share volume 5,042 Public Float 78% Market Cap. $107 million ST / LT Debt $0 M / $0 M Debt/Capital N/A ROE N/A Cash & Inv/Share $0.47

Price (Close February 1, 2010)

$6.11 Rating NEUTRAL Fair Valuation $7.50

Company Information

February 2, 2010

Duane Nash, MD JD MBA (415) 263-6650 [email protected]

Akiva Felt (415) 263-6648 [email protected]

• World Heart Corporation (WorldHeart) is a former leader in the LVAD market, now determined to recapture its former prominence. WorldHeart developed the Novacor, one of the first commercially successful left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). Although the Novacor reached obsolescence in 2008, the market for LVADs, designed to address the large unmet needs of patients with end-stage heart failure, is now beginning to mature, with realistic hope of expanding from the $150 million per year bridge-to-transplant market (BTT), into a destination therapy (DT) market that is expected to reach $1.5 – $2.0 billion per year. WorldHeart hopes to recapture its position as a market leader through the development of both a next-generation LVAD, the Levacor (designed to treat Class IV patients), as well as a partial flow device, the MiVAD, which targets the much larger population of Class IIIb patients.

• WorldHeart is positioning its devices as potentially having the best blood-handling characteristics and durability among existing LVADs. Two players, Thoratec (THOR-OUTPERFORM) and HeartWare (HTWR-OUTPERFORM) are widely expected to dominate the LVAD market in the near-future. Both devices have proven to be durable in the medium-term (~2 years), with an incidence of bleeding and stroke that is relatively low and which continues to decrease. However, room for improvement still remains and long-term data is relatively sparse. WorldHeart believes that durability, bleeding and stroke issues will remain at unacceptable levels with these devices, particularly when considering the 5-10 year usage expected. WorldHeart also presents a compelling rationale why its devices should avoid these issues, although clinical data is limited to 2 patients. In sum, we believe WorldHeart presents an interesting story that merits continued monitoring as the LVAD market itself matures.

• We predict that WorldHeart has cash runway into late 2010. Having just raised $7.1 million through a private placement, we predict that WHRT has roughly 9-12 months of cash runway. We believe this runway should enable WHRT to continue its ongoing Levacor BTT study to gauge initial clinical results, although we expect the company to require additional funding to complete the study.

• Our fair value of $7.50 per share suggests that WorldHeart holds upside potential; however clinical risk is high. Our fair value is calculated using a sum-of-parts analysis, applying a 25% annual discount to our peak annual sales estimate for WHRT’s VAD pipeline, incorporating a 1-5 multiple based on stage of clinical risk. At a current market price of $6.11 we believe WHRT is at an attractive valuation. However, in light of developmental risk due to a current lack of clinical data, we are initiating research coverage with a NEUTRAL rating.

• Risks to the attainment of our fair value include risks that: WorldHeart’s device candidates obtain disappointing clinical trial results or fail to obtain regulatory approval in a timely fashion; Physician prescribers are not be impressed with the products’ clinical profiles; WorldHeart fails to effectively commercialize its products; third-party patents prevent the timely commercialization; superior clinical results are obtained by a third-party competitor; WorldHeart is unable to raise needed capital.

FYE DEC 2008A 2009E 2010E REV. ($m) ACTUAL CURR. PREV. CONS. CURR. PREV. CONS.

Q1 Mar $0.6A $0.0A $0.3E Q2 Jun 0.5A 0.0A 1.1E Q3 Sep 0.2A 0.0A 1.7E Q4 Dec 0.4M 0.0E 2.6E Year $1.7M $0.0E $5.8E

2008A 2009E 2010E EPS ACTUAL CURR. PREV. CONS. CURR. PREV. CONS. Q1 Mar ($22.92) ($0.28)A ($0.29)EQ2 Jun (7.94) (0.33)A (0.28)EQ3 Sep (23.97) (0.30)A (0.24)EQ4 Dec (0.16) (0.31)E (0.23)EYear ($4.37) ($1.21)E ($1.02)E

Company Description

L O S A N G E L E S | N E W Y O R K | S A N F R A N C I S C O | B O S T O N | S E A T T L E

2 | World Heart Corporation Duane Nash, MD JD MBA (415) 263-6650

Table of Contents INVESTMENT SUMMARY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3

INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4

NEAR-TERM MILESTONES, PIPELINE PREDICTIONS AND VALUATION ……………………………………………..

6

CHRONIC HEART FAILURE …………………………………………………………………………………………………...

9

WORLDHEART’S NEXT GENERATION LEVACOR DEVICE ……….……… ……………….…………………….……

11

WORLDHEART’S OTHER VAD PIPELINE DEVICES …..…………………………………………………………………..

22

WORLDHEART HAS A DECADE OF EXPERIENCE IN THE VAD MARKET…………………………………………….

26

REIMBURSEMENT, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND LICENSING AGREEMENTS …………………………………

27

COMPANY BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

28

RISKS TO INVESTMENT THESIS ……………………………………………………………………………….…………….

30

DISCLOSURES…………………… ……………………………………………………………………………….…………….

32

Duane Nash, MD JD MBA (415) 263-6650 World Heart Corporation | 3

• WorldHeart is a pioneer in the developing field of LVAD therapy for the treatment of heart failure. WorldHeart

developed the Novacor, one of the first commercially successful left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), designed to address the unmet needs of patients with end-stage heart failure. Although the Novacor reached obsolescence in 2008, the market for LVADs is still developing, with potential of expanding from the $250 million per year bridge-to-transplant market (BTT), into a destination therapy (DT) market that is expected to reach $1.5–$2.0 billion per year. WorldHeart hopes to recapture its position as a market leader through the development of both a next-generation LVAD, the Levacor (designed to treat Class IV patients), as well as a partial flow device, the MiVAD, which targets the much larger population of Class IIIb patients (potential market $2-3 billion dollars). In January 2010, WorldHeart implanted its first US patient with a Levacor in a pivotal trial for BTT.

• We believe that WorldHeart’s clinical stage Levacor device holds the potential to reduce the risk of bleeding among LVAD patients. Although they are a clear improvement over older technology, current (third-party) LVADs appear to be associated with relatively high rates of bleeding and clotting complications. These complications are potentially fatal, and can otherwise prove frustrating and expensive to deal with. The FDA appears keen to these concerns, requiring Thoratec to conduct a post marketing bleeding study of the HeartMate II, recently approved for DT in January 2010. WorldHeart believes that its LVAD, the Levacor, will benefit from improved blood handling, leading to a decreased incidence of both bleeding and clotting complications. WorldHeart also believes that the device will prove uniquely suited to allowing patients to be weaned from the device, thereby fostering the Bridge-to-Recovery indication. If these attributes are realized, we can envision a scenario where the company’s technology becomes best-in-class, and the majority of LVAD patients or at least certain subsets are implanted with WorldHeart devices. In support, while the Levacor is often perceived as one of the largest devices (implying that it is difficult to implant), we believe these shortcomings will be almost entirely ignored if the device can significantly reduce bleeding and clotting complications.

• We hope that near-term clinical data will provide clarity. While WorldHeart’s engineering of the Levacor is impressive, and

its potential superiority is plausible, the device is very early in its clinical development and we do not yet know whether or not the device will perform as hoped. At the moment only 2 patients have been implanted with a prior version of the device, and the US pivotal trial in Bridge-to-Transplant is in its infancy. Moreover, while competing devices currently retain relatively high bleeding and clotting rates, we expect continuing improvements in outcomes with existing devices, which may lessen WorldHeart’s eventual advantage here. In sum, future data sets will be critical, including those showing: (1) whether or not the Levacor can achieve clearly superior results; and (2) whether or not existing devices can catch up to those results through improved patient selection, surgical technique and post-operative care. Regarding the former, the first meaningful Levacor data set is currently expected around Q2:2012. However, we expect anecdotal data beginning in late 2010.

• WorldHeart’s next-generation device, the MiVAD, is being developed for the multimillion dollar market of NYHA Class

IIIb heart failure. In addition to the Levacor, WorldHeart is also developing a next-generation device that is designed to retain the Levacor’s improved blood handling, yet targeting a much larger potential market of less sick heart failure patients. The MiVAD is a partial flow device designed to provide up to 4 liters per minute of support (compared with up to 10 liters per minute for traditional LVADs) in patients with Class IIIb heart failure. Not only is this market estimated to be roughly 3-4-times that for traditional LVADs, but the device is also designed to be implanted over the ribs through a minimally-invasive procedure. Although we predict peak revenues for the MiVAD could reach over one billion dollars per year, we note that the device is not expected to enter pivotal trials in the US until 2014 or launch in this country until roughly 2018.

• We believe that WorldHeart has limited liquidity. The company has a roughly $110 million market capitalization, with an

average daily volume of only about 5,000 shares. This relative lack of liquidity may complicate efforts to either acquire or dispose of large positions.

• We consider execution risk to be lowered by Management’s developmental, clinical and regulatory experience.

Management has extensive experience in the development, approval and commercialization of medical devices, including LVADs. We believe that this valuable experience reduces risks to the company’s clinical pipeline and commercial potential.

• We calculate that WorldHeart is trading at an attractive valuation with 25% upside potential to our fair value estimate

of $7.50/share. Our fair value is calculated using the equal-weighted average of three sum-of-parts analyses representing our base, best, and worst case scenarios for the Levacor’s launch. In brief, the best case scenario envisions the Levacor persuasively demonstrating blood handling characteristics superior to other LVADs. The middle scenario envisions the Levacor having better blood handling than most / all other LVADs, but the magnitude of this difference being modest. Finally, the worst scenario envisions the Levacor’s approval, but subsequent failure to differentiate itself commercially followed by relatively dismal commercial performance. Because we are unable to predict which outcome will most likely occur, given the current paucity of clinical data, we are initiating with a NEUTRAL rating. (Please contact your Wedbush PacGrow LifeSciences salesperson for full calculations.)

INVESTMENT SUMMARY


World Heart Corporation (WorldHeart) is a mechanical circulatory support company currently focused on developing a next-generation left ventricular assist device (LVAD), the Levacor. LVADs are mechanical devices that are surgically implanted to support a patient’s own heart by pumping a portion of the cardiac output. These devices are designed to treat the tens of thousands of patients in the United States with end-stage heart failure who are unable or unwilling to undergo heart transplantation, or to keep them alive long enough for a heart transplant to become available. See Table 1 for a brief description of the different LVAD applications. Table 1. LVAD Applications and Market Sizes

Application Description Estimated Duration of Support

Estimated Total US Market Size

Comments

Bridge-to-Transplant (BTT)

Implanting an LVAD in a transplant-eligible patient to maintain or improve the patient’s health until a donor heart becomes available.

3-18 months $250 million Relatively mature market.

Destination Therapy (DT)

Implanting an LVAD to provide long-term support for a patient not currently eligible for a natural heart transplant.

2-10 years $1.5-2 billion Anticipated to be next area of LVAD growth.

Bridge-to-Recovery (BTR)

Implanting an LVAD to restore a patient’s cardiac function helping the natural heart to recover and thereby allowing removal of the LVAD.

3-12 months $100-300 million

Thought to be roughly 5-10% of the DT market.

Long-Term Partial Circulatory Support

(PCS)

Implanting a device capable of supporting only a portion of cardiac output in order to delay or prevent the progression of heart failure.

5-15 years $2-3 billion Currently experimental and unpenetrated.

Source: Wedbush Securities WorldHeart was initially incorporated in Ontario, Canada on April 1, 1996 with the goal of commercializing the "EVAD" artificial heart and related technologies developed at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute. With its first-generation Novacor device, which was acquired from Edwards LifeSciences in 2000, the company spent its first decade as a true LVAD pioneer. Between 1984 and 2008, the Novacor was implanted in over 1,800 patients worldwide, and became one of the first commercially successful LVAD devices. The company’s entire product portfolio (past, present and future) is shown in Table 2 below. Table 2. WorldHeart’s LVAD Portfolio

Device Status Description Indications Novacor LVAS First implanted in

1984. Discontinued in 2008.

Pioneering 1st generation, pulsatile LVAD which eventually became obsolete due to large size and subsequent technical advances from competing LVADs.

Approved for BTT in the US, Canada, Europe and Japan. Also available for DT and Bridge-to-recovery in Europe. Withdrawn from market in 2008.

Levacor First patient in US BTT trial implanted in January 2010.

Next-Generation centrifugal, magnetically levitated, axial rotary VAD. Currently in a pivotal US trial in BTT.

Designed for Bridge-to-Transplant; Bridge-to-Recovery; and Destination Therapy in Class IV Heart Failure Patients.

PediaFlow Currently in animal studies.

Small, magnetically levitated, axial rotary VAD intended for use in infants. Currently under development by a consortium, including WorldHeart, the NIH and the University of Pittsburgh.

Pediatric Heart Failure.

MiVAD Animal studies not yet initiated.

Small, magnetically levitated, axial rotary VAD intended to provide partial circulatory support in patients at an earlier stage of heart failure than traditional VADs. Designed to allow placement through minimally-invasive technique.

Designed for Destination Therapy in Class IIIb Heart Failure Patients.

Sources: World Heart Corporation and Wedbush Securities.

INTRODUCTION


Since the Novacor’s obsolescence, the company is now focused on recapturing its former prominence through the next-generation Levacor, which the company obtained as part of its July 2005 acquisition of MedQuest Products, Inc. WorldHeart began a pivotal US trial of this device in Bridge-to-Transplant in January 2010. The Levacor uses a magnetically-levitated rotor resulting in no moving parts that are subject to wear, and is expected to provide multi-year support with minimal risk of device failure. Moreover, the Levacor is also designed to have improved blood handling, thereby reducing the risk of both bleeding and clotting, two of the most common sources of adverse events in LVAD patients. Finally, the Levacor is relatively rare among LVADs in its ability to operate at different flow rates, thereby allowing bridge-to-recovery patients to be gradually weaned from the device. WorldHeart hopes that these attributes will allow the Levacor to gain a substantial portion of the growing market for LVADs, which we predict to exceed $1 billion by 2014 (collectively). On one hand, we agree with WorldHeart that both durability and blood handling are of prime concern for all LVAD patients, and particularly those indicated for Destination Therapy (predicted to be the vast majority of the LVAD market). We also find it plausible that the Levacor may have better blood handling and device durability than other existing LVADs. On the other hand, however, the Levacor’s benefits are currently speculative, since only four patients have ever been implanted with the device, and data is available on only two. Moreover, while room for improvement still remains, the durability and blood handling of existing LVADs are already better than initially expected and continue to improve. As a result, it remains to be seen how much room will remain for the Levacor to differentiate itself through these attributes. Finally, in the absence of a clear benefit in blood handling and/or durability, we believe that WorldHeart will have a hard time gaining market share from other more established competitors (Thoratec) and devices that are smaller and/or easier to implant (HeartWare, Micromed). That said, if the Levacor’s durability and blood handling are clearly superior, we predict the Levacor will gain a significant (and possibly the largest) portion of the LVAD market. WorldHeart also benefits from a second key product candidate, the MiVAD, which is designed to provide partial flow support for the much larger market of Class III heart failure patients, thereby reducing the rapidity of disease progression and both increasing lifespan and relieving symptoms. As with the Levacor, WorldHeart hopes that the MiVAD’s blood handling characteristics and durability will prove to be best-in-class, allowing WorldHeart to potentially dominate this completely untapped and multi-billion dollar market. The company current trades on Nasdaq under the symbol WHRT. Before June 14, 2008, the company also traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange. WorldHeart is almost entirely based in the United States, with approximately 50 full time employees, the majority of whom are located in Salt Lake City, Utah, with one technical team composed of roughly ten employees located in Oakland, California.


Near-Term Milestones We estimate the following near-term milestones for WorldHeart: 2010 FY:2010 Continuing enrollment of pivotal US BTT trial

Q4:2010 Possible expansion of pivotal US BTT trial to 40 sites

2011 H1:2011 Anticipated initiation of pivotal US Trial of Levacor in DT Q1:2011 Anticipated initiation of pivotal European Trial of Levacor

We also estimate the following near-term milestones for other LVAD companies: 2010 Q1:2010 Launch of Thoratec’s HeartMate II in Destination Therapy

Mar 14-16 Third-party LVAD data updates at ACC Annual Meeting (Atlanta, Georgia) April 21-24 Third-party LVAD data updates at ISHLT Annual Meeting (Chicago, IL) Q2:2010 Anticipated initiation of DT trial for HeartWare’s HVAD device Sep 12-15 Third-party LVAD data updates at HFSA Annual Meeting (San Diego, California) Nov 13-17 Third-party LVAD data updates at AHA Annual Meeting (Chicago, Illinois)

Pipeline Predictions We predict the following timeline for WHRT’s VAD line:

Pivotal TrialDataPMAApprovalLaunch

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4



2015

2015

Levacor ‐ United States

2013 2014

2011 2012 2013 2014

Bridge‐to‐Transplant

Destin

ation Therapy

2009 2010 2011 2012

2009 2010

Pivotal TrialDataCE MarkApprovalLaunch


Levacor ‐ Europe

Bridge‐to‐Transplant

20152009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

NEAR-TERM MILESTONES, PIPE-LINE PREDICTIONS AND VALUATION


PreclinicalPivotal TrialPMAINDApprovalLaunch




Brid

ge‐to‐Transplant

2014 20152009 2010 2011 2012 2013Destin

ation Therapy

2015

MiVAD ‐ United States

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Pivotal TrialDataCE MarkApprovalLaunch


MiVAD ‐ Europe

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: Wedbush Securities The company is also part of a consortium expected to commercialize the PediaFlow device for use infants. Given the uncertainty around timing of commercialization of this device, as well as the relatively small portion of eventual revenues to be forwarded to WorldHeart, we have not included PediaFlow revenues in our valuation. Valuation We calculate WHRT is trading at an appropriate valuation with 25% upside potential to our fair value estimate of $7.50/share. We calculate potential breakeven and full-year profitability in 2015 through revenues received from the potential launch of the Levacor in the United States in Q3:2013. Our fair value is calculated using the equal-weighted average of three sum-of-parts analyses representing our base, bull, and bear case scenarios for Levacor’s launch. In brief, the bull case scenario envisions the Levacor persuasively demonstrating blood handling characteristics superior to other LVADs. The middle scenario envisions the Levacor having better blood handling than most / all other LVADs, but the magnitude of this difference being modest. Finally, the bear scenario envisions the Levacor’s approval, but subsequent failure to differentiate itself commercially, followed by relatively dismal commercial uptake. We apply a 25% annual discount to our peak annual sales estimates for WHRT’s VAD pipeline, incorporating a 1-5 multiple based on stage of clinical risk. Due to the lack of clinical data available to confidently predict how Levacor will compare to its competitors, we cannot predict which scenario is most likely to occur, and therefore all three contribute equally to our valuation. Moreover, given this heightened degree of clinical risk (despite clear upside potential) we are initiating with a NEUTRAL rating. (Please contact your Wedbush Securities salesperson for full calculations.)


In sum, we believe WorldHeart holds potential and merits continued monitoring. However, in light of the relative lack of clinical data for the Levacor, we advise investors to proceed with caution, and are initiating coverage with a NEUTRAL rating. We do expect WorldHeart’s value to become clearer as: (1) the blood handling characteristics (and any deficiencies thereof) of existing LVADs become better understood; and (2) we gain a better picture of the Levacor’s own clinical potential.

Today: 2/2/10 Stock (US$) MktCap (US$ 000) Upside

Wedbush Current Fair Value for WHRT: $7.65 $134,350 25% 1: in preclinical testing

Current Full Pipeline Fair Value: $7.65 $134,350 2: passed preclinical

Cash: $0.47 $8,291 3: IDE filing Total Stock Value: $8.13 $142,641 4: Pivotal Trial Current NASDAQ Price: $6.11 $107,254 5: Launched Total Diluted Shares Outstanding (000): 17,554

IndicationEligible #

Annual WW Treatments Est

Pricing $ per Patient per

Year Est/Actual

2016 Penetration

Est

Est/Actual Launch Multiple

Annual Discount

Rate

Wedbush MktCap Fair Value ($000)

WS Stock Fair Value

Levacor Left Ventricular Assist Device US BTT 3,700 85,000 4.9% 9/1/2013 3 25% $15,445 $0.88

Levacor Left Ventricular Assist Device US DT 75,000 85,000 0.6% 9/1/2015 3 25% $35,111 $2.00

Levacor Left Ventricular Assist Device

Ex-US BTT/DT 25,000 85,000 1.3% 7/1/2013 3 25% $27,259 $1.55

Current Fair Value for WHRT: $4.43




Ex-US BTT/DT 25,000 85,000 3.1% 7/1/2013 3 25% $65,813 $3.75





Ex-US BTT/DT 25,000 85,000 0.3% 7/1/2013 3 25% $6,055 $0.34


IndicationEligible #

Annual WW Treatments Est

Pricing $ per Patient per

Year Est/Actual

2020 Penetration

Est

Est/Actual Launch Multiple

Annual Discount

Rate

Wedbush MktCap Fair Value ($000)

WS Stock Fair Value

MiVAD Left Ventricular Assist Device CHF 550,000 60,000 0.2% 10/1/2018 1 25% $7,509 $0.43

$3,698

$72,747

$54,793

$42,539

Product WHRT Est. 2016 WW Sales ($000)

$24,102

Base Case Scenario

World Heart Pipeline Valuation

Product WHRT Est. 2020 WW Sales ($000)

$68,666

We use multiples to account for clinical and regulatory risk at

various stages of development.

$16,254

$9,449

Bear Case Scenario

$302,700

$102,705

Bull Case Scenario

Source: Wedbush Securities estimates Cash Runway As of the end of Q3:2009, WorldHeart reported cash and cash equivalents of $10.0 million. In January 2010, the company raised a net of $7.1 million through a private placement of stock and warrants. We predict cash runway into Q4:2010, by which time initial clinical results with the Levacor in the US should be available (albeit in limited numbers).


WorldHeart’s entire product portfolio is focused on the large unmet need of chronic Heart Failure (HF). Heart Failure is a chronic condition where the heart cannot effectively pump enough blood to satisfy the body’s needs. The precise causes of heart failure are myriad, and include anything that either impairs the heart’s ability to squeeze with sufficient force during the heart’s contraction phase of systole (systolic heart failure) or relax and fill up with enough blood during the relaxation phase of diastole (diastolic heart failure). The end result is insufficient cardiac output, which is equivalent to the amount of blood the heart can pump in a minute and is defined as the heart rate multiplied by the volume of blood ejected with each contraction (stroke volume). One common way to evaluate the degree of HF is to consider ejection fraction, which is the percentage of blood within the ventricle that is pumped out with each ventricular contraction. Normal ejection fractions for adults range between 50 to 70%; in systolic heart failure, it often falls below 40%. When HF affects the right side of the heart, which pumps deoxygenated blood from the rest of the body to the lungs, a back-up or congestion of blood can occur in the body, often resulting in swelling of the limbs and abdomen. Conversely, when HF affects the left side of the heart, which pumps oxygenated blood from the lungs to the rest of the body, congestion and fluid build-up can occur in the lungs, resulting in dyspnea or difficulty breathing. In both cases, easy fatigueability and decreased exercise tolerance are common. The most frequent form of HF is left-sided systolic dysfunction, resulting in dyspnea. In most cases, this condition is caused by coronary artery disease. Other significant risks for chronic HF include cigarette smoking, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, and valvular heart disease. Rarer causes of HF include severe anemia, hyperthyroidism, viral infections, alcoholism and connective tissue diseases. New York Heart Association Functional Classification One commonly-used measure of HF is the NYHA functional classification, which documents severity of symptoms and is often used to assess response to treatment. Its four classes are summarized below:

Class I: No limitation is experienced in any activities; there are no symptoms from ordinary activities.

Class II: Slight, mild limitation of activity; the patient is comfortable at rest or with mild exertion.

Class III: Marked limitation of any activity; the patient is comfortable only at rest.

Class IV: Any physical activity brings on discomfort and symptoms occur at rest.

ACC/AHA Classification A second HF classification was introduced through 2001 guidelines from the ACC/AHA Joint Working Group:

Stage A: Patients at high risk for developing HF in the future but no functional or structural heart disorder. Stage B: A structural heart disorder but no symptoms at any stage. Stage C: Previous or current symptoms of heart failure in the context of an underlying structural heart problem, but managed with medical treatment. Stage D: Advanced disease requiring hospital-based support, a heart transplant or palliative care.

WORLDHEART IS TARGETING THE LARGE UNMET NEED OF CHRONIC HEART FAILURE

Source: NIH.

Figure 3. The Heart.


The ACC staging system is notable in that Stage A, which does not have a corresponding NYHA class, encompasses “pre-heart failure,” where intervention with treatment can presumably prevent progression to overt symptoms. Meanwhile, ACC Stage B corresponds to NYHA Class I, ACC Stage C corresponds to NYHA Class II and III, while ACC Stage D overlaps with NYHA Class IV.

Chronic Heart Failure and Therapy

Heart failure is a major and growing public health problem affecting more than 5 million Americans, with an estimated 550,000 new cases diagnosed every year. The lifetime risk of a forty-year old eventually developing HF is approximately 20% for both men and women, and the absolute number of persons with HF is expected to double between 2000 and 2030 due to an aging US population. The annual mortality for HF is roughly 30% within the first year of diagnosis and 50% within 5 years. Treatment generates annual costs of approximately $35 billion, of which approximately $3 billion is spent on drugs and $19 billion is spent in the acute hospital setting. Among Medicare beneficiaries, HF is the leading cause of hospitalization. Chronic heart failure is generally treated by first addressing any underlying causes, and then, by decreasing stress on the heart, including that caused by fluid overload. The most commonly prescribed drugs include beta-blockers and ACE-inhibitors. Other drugs include diuretics, vasodilators, angiotensin-receptor blockers and aldosterone-receptor antagonists. Pharmaceuticals are typically the first line of therapy in heart failure. Heart function continues to deteriorate while on drug therapy, however. Eventually, a large number of patients progress into NYHA Classes III and IV, characterized by increasing degrees of debilitation. Surgical repair / reshaping of the left ventricle and valve replacements are performed in some patients with heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is also being used in NYHA Class III and early Class IV (ambulatory) patients with cardiac dysynchrony (QRS ≥ 0.12 seconds) to slow the progression of the disease. However these therapies are neither cures nor effective for latter stages of the disease. The only cure for end-stage chronic heart failure is cardiac transplant. However, this option is extraordinarily invasive and severely limited by the scant availability of donated organs (only about 2,200 per year). Currently heart transplantation associated with the best outcomes: three and ten year survival rates of roughly 80% and 50%, respectively. Moreover, patients who succeed in gaining admission to a transplant waiting list often deteriorate while waiting for a heart. Accordingly, a large potential market exists among both persons with end-stage heart failure who are not eligible for cardiac transplantation (Destination Therapy), as well as for those patients whose condition worsens while awaiting transplant (Bridge-to-Transplantation therapy). Both of these markets are currently being targeted by both WHRT’s Levacor as well as third-party LVADs. Because they are manufactured, LVADs have the potential for far greater availability than transplantable hearts, whose current supplies are grossly insufficient. Moreover, LVAD implantation is associated with a shorter hospital stay than heart transplantation, and obviates the need for the high powered immunosuppression necessary with allografts, as well as its associated tumor and infection risk. Finally, in the event the native heart recovers, the LVAD can be removed, unlike a transplanted heart. On the other hand, heart transplant outcomes still appear superior to LVAD outcomes, although the gap is closing. In addition, LVAD patients need to take anticoagulation drugs and also must change their batteries several times a day or their pump will stop functioning and become obstructed with blood clots. Finally, the risks of stroke, infections and device malfunction are not negligible. That said, the supply of transplantable hearts is not expected to grow anytime in the near future. Accordingly, we believe that the market for LVADs will continue to expand as both the population of elderly individuals increases, and the outcomes associated with LVADs continue to improve.


WorldHeart’s lead product candidate is the Levacor, a next-generation rotary LVAD whose underlying technology was obtained through WHRT’s July 2005 acquisition of MedQuest. Unlike earlier generation rotary pumps with blood-lubricated bearings, the Levacor is a compact, bearingless, magnetically-levitated, centrifugal pump with an impeller that is completely magnetically levitated. Figure 4. Implanted Levacor. Figure 5. Levacor close-up.

Source: WorldHeart Corporation (with permission.) Like other LVADs currently in clinical usage, the Levacor is implanted surgically with an inflow cannula that is attached to the left ventricle of the heart, and an outflow cannula that is attached to the ascending aorta. Since the left ventricle of the heart functions by pumping blood into the aorta, the Levacor is able to de-stress and unload the heart, while also increasing cardiac output and blood flow to the body. Like other LVADs, the Levacor is also connected via a percutaneous lead that exits the skin of the abdominal wall to attach to a controller and battery pack that are carried by the patient on a vest. Patients need to change these batteries several times a day to keep the LVAD constantly powered, and to prevent blood stasis and clotting within the device. Patients also need to take anticoagulants to further minimize the risk of clotting during device functioning. The Levacor’s Key Attributes WorldHeart hopes that the Levacor will prove to be clinically superior to currently approved VADs (such as the HeartMate II), as well as VADs currently in development (such as the HVAD, HeartAssist 5). In support, WorldHeart cites the following key Levacor attributes: • Full magnetic levitation: Full magnetic levitation is thought to eliminate wear mechanisms within the pump and also provide for

greater clearances with optimized blood flow around the impeller. In contrast, for example, Thoratec’s HeartMate II does not employ mag-lev technology, while HeartWare’s HVAD is only partially mag-lev, with its impeller suspended by a magnet on one side and hydrodynamic forces on the other. Theoretically, the Levacor’s full mag-lev approach may provide greater device durability. With an expectation that these devices may need to perform for 5-10 years in the Destination Therapy application, such durability is clearly advantageous. However, devices such as the HeartMate II and HVAD, which are not fully mag-lev, have proven to be surprisingly robust, albeit with relatively limited data for the longest durations.

Legend: 1. Implanted pump; 2. Inflow cannula affixed to the LV apex; 3. Outflow conduit to ascending aorta; 4. Percutaneous lead; 5. Extension cable; 6. Controller with internal reserve battery; 7. Battery pack.

WORLDHEART’S NEXT GEN LEVACOR DEVICE DESIGNED FOR IMPROVED BLOOD HANDLING


• Potentially improved blood handling characteristics: As described in more detail below, WorldHeart believes that the Levacor may have best-in-class blood handling. In particular, the Levacor’s mag-lev design is anticipated to minimize risks of both bleeding and clotting, two of the more serious (and often stroke-inducing) consequences of VAD therapy.

• Simpler, more robust design: The Levacor’s levitation technology employs a unique combination of passive suspension (using

permanent magnets only) in four axes and active suspension (a single electromagnet) in one axis, resulting in a system that is anticipated to be simpler, more efficient, and more reliable than other mag-lev designs. For example, other mag-lev pumps currently in development use active electromagnetic control for up to five axes of impeller position of tilt, requiring complex circuits and sensors, and theoretically increasing the likelihood of device failure. The Levacor’s single axis of control also allows for a thin percutaneous lead, thereby reducing the risk of lead fracture, as well as risk of skin infection. Finally, the Levacor also employs a modular percutaneous lead, a unique feature among today’s devices. The implanted part of the lead can be removed from the VAD and replaced without requiring removal of the VAD itself. The external part of the lead (essentially an extension cable) can be replaced without requiring surgery.

• Novel inlet cannula allows good anatomic fit: While centrifugal pumps have historically required an inlet that comes in physically

at right angles to the center of the pump, the Levacor employs a patented inlet that is physically flat, but still provides flow geometrically at a right angle to the pump inlet. This design permits a pancake-like shape for the Levacor, with a low profile (38 mm thickness) in the anterior-posterior dimension, allowing the device to be implanted in adolescents and small women. Overall, however, we believe that the Levacor’s relatively large size (440 grams) is the device’s major drawback, as implantation may be more difficult and time consuming than that for Thoratec’s HeartMate II (281 grams) and HeartWare’s HVAD (145 grams). Indeed, the device is designed to sit in the abdomen, requiring the inflow cannula to pierce the diaphragm, necessitating extra surgical dissection and effort.

• Patient-friendly peripherals: Patients implanted with current-generation LVADs must carry several device peripherals at all

times in either a specially-designed belt, carry bag or vest. The three main components are: (1) a controller with alarms to drive and monitor the LVAD; (2) a battery pack to keep the LVAD powered; and (3) a backup battery to extend battery life and prevent accidental disconnection. In total these weigh around 5 pounds. WorldHeart hopes to differentiate itself by developing more patient-friendly peripherals which are significantly lighter and less cumbersome, at a total weight of less than 2 pounds. Moreover, because one of Levacor’s batteries fits directly into the controller, thereby reducing the number of carried components from 3 to 2, WorldHeart also hopes to reduce the complexity of connecting wires and eliminate the risk of accidental disconnection during battery changes.

• Off-pump insertion and removal: The current generation of LVADs are implanted while the heart is stopped and the patient is

on cardiopulmonary bypass. Although bypass enables continuing perfusion of the brain and vital organs while the LVAD’s inflow cannula is being attached to the left ventricle, cardiopulmonary bypass itself is associated with stroke and neurologic deficits. Accordingly, a device that can shorten or avoid cardiopulmonary bypass should not only decrease procedure time, but may also allow for better clinical outcomes. WorldHeart believes that the Levacor can be implanted without bypass, because of its incorporation of a specially-designed sleeve. Off-pump implantation has successfully been performed on animals, and may soon be attempted on humans as well. Finally, both human patients who were implanted and weaned from the Levacor had their devices removed off-pump through a trans-abdominal procedure that did not require thoracotomy. We are not aware of this capability with any other existing LVADs.

• Weaning capability: the Levacor is the one of the few LVADs in clinical trials that can be set to different flow rates. While the

patient can set the device to three different flow rates, physicians can control flow rates to an even higher degree. Because the Levacor is fully mag-lev, the net flow rate can be decreased to effectively zero without loss of impellor suspension, potentially reducing the risk of device clotting, unlike with either the HeartMate II or HVAD. While such flow control is also theoretically possible with Terumo’s DuraHeart, the device does not currently contain this capability. The ability to gradually decrease flow appears to be highly advantageous in the Bridge-to-Recovery context. Not only can patients be gradually weaned off of support to enable the heart to slowly recover its strength, but the heart can also be tested by temporarily removing LVAD flow without actually removing the device.

In summary, the Levacor is the only bearingless, fully-magnetically-levitated implantable centrifugal rotary pump in clinical trials, as well as the only such device capable of multiple preset flow rates.

Importance of Blood Handling We believe that the Levacor’s most compelling attribute may be its blood-handling characteristics. Because the device is fully mag-lev, it is not dependent on blood properties for rotor suspension. Moreover, the Levacor’s greater clearances around its rotor may provide improved flow patterns across a wider range of cardiac outputs, thereby resulting in less shear-stress and trauma to blood elements. Current Bleeding and Clotting Rates Leave Room for Improvement While Thoratec’s HeartMate II is an impressive device and a dramatic improvement over earlier LVADs, its current short-coming appears to be its association with bleeding. For example, as shown in Table 6 below, pivotal BTT data suggested that a HeartMate II


patient could an expect an average of over two major bleeding episodes per year (0.45 episodes requiring surgery and 1.67 non-surgical episodes requiring transfusion of at least 2 units of packed red blood cells). Meanwhile, the consequences of unwanted clotting were relatively low, but not insignificant. Table 6. Incidence of Bleeding and Clotting Related Complications Among Thoratec and HeartWare Clinical Trials.

Sources: Francis Pagani, MD, et al., Use of a Continuous-Flow Device in Patients Awaiting Heart Transplantation, J Am Col Cardiology 2009 54(4); Mark S. Slaughter, MD, et al., Advanced Heart Failure Treated with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device, N Engl J Med 2009; Martin Strueber, Update on the International Clinical Experience with the HeartWare Ventricular Assist System (Data as of June 2009).

This bleeding rate appears to have lessened to roughly 1.89 events per patient per year in the pivotal DT trial. Moreover, the overall stroke rate appears to have also decreased significantly although it still remains above one per ten patient-years with the HeartMate II. In comparison, the smaller data set for HeartWare’s HVAD suggests far fewer bleeding complications (0.21 per patient-year requiring surgery; 0.08 per patient year requiring pRBCs), although also a higher rate of clotting. That said, a significant portion of this clotting risk appears due to a manufacturing defect that is reported to have been resolved without recurrence. Recent data also suggests that the rate of complications subsequent to patient-discharge is relatively low for the HeartMate II:

Event HeartWare Intern’l BTT Trial

VERY SICK Patients Thoratec US BTT Trial EVEN SICKER Patients

Thoratec II US DT Trial SICKEST Patients

Patients with Event

No. Of Events

Event Rate per Patient-Year

Patients with Event

No. Of Events


Patients with Event

No. Of Events


Bleeding

Requiring Surgery 16% 10 0.21 6% 82 0.45 30% 40 0.23

Requiring ≥ 2 units of packed red cells only

8% 4 0.08 53% 303 1.67 81% 108 1.66

Stroke

Ischemic 4% 2 0.04 5% 16 0.09 8% 11 0.06

Hemorrhagic 6% 3 0.06 3% 9 0.05 11% 15 0.07

Device Replacement (excludes apparently resolved HTWR manufacturing defect)

14% (10%)

7 (5)

0.14 (0.10)

4% 12 0.07 9% 12 0.06


Table 7. Thrombotic and Hemorrhagic Adverse Events After Initial Hospital Discharge Used in the International Normalized Ratio Analysis of Figures 3 to 5 (N = 331).

All events (220 PYs) Discharge to 6 mon (111 PYs)

Events after discharge Pts (%) Events Events/PY Pts% Events Events/PY

Thrombotic Events

Ischemic stroke 8 (2.4) 9 0.041 6 (1.8) 6 0.054

Pump thrombosis 3 (0.9) 3 0.014 3 (0.9) 3 0.027

Hemorrhagic Events

Hemorrhagic stroke 7 (2.1) 7 0.032 6 (1.8) 6 0.054

Bleeding requiring surgery 4 (1.2) 4 0.018 4 (1.2) 4 0.037

Transfusion > 2U PRBC/24 hr

For bleedingc 40 (12.1) 60a 0.273 31 (9.4) 43b 0.387

For anemiad 21 (6.3) 42a 0.191 17 (5.1) 25b 0.225

PRBC, packed red blood cells; PY, patient-year. aThe combined 60 + 42 = 102 events occurred in 51 patients (15.4%). bThe combined 43 + 25 = 48 events occurred in 40 patients (12.9%). cWith identified sites of bleeding. dWithout identified sites of bleeding.

Source: Andrew J. Boyle, et al., Low Thromboembolism and Pump Thrombosis With the HeartMate II LVAD: Analysis of Outpatient Anti-coagulation, Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation 2009, 28(9): 881-7. In other words, the vast majority of complications appear to occur prior to the initial hospital discharge. However, as noted above, the risks of bleeding with the HeartMate II remain substantial even post-discharge, with over 0.45 patient events per year of bleeding requiring surgery (0.018 events per year), bleeding requiring transfusion of at least 2 units of packed red blood cells (0.273 events per year) and anemia requiring transfusion (0.191 events per year) which we attribute to occult rather than overt GI bleeding. We expect continuing improvements in post-op care and patient selection to improve outcomes with both Thoratec’s HeartMate II and HeartWare’s HVAD. For example, much of the data cited above involves patients with INRs targeted between 2.5 and 3.5. However, many centers are now reducing the degree of anti-coagulation for their LVAD patients to a target INR of 1.7 to 2.2. This should reduce (at least somewhat) future bleeding rates, although it may also increase clotting risk. Data presented recently at the Society for Thoracic Surgeons conference suggest that survival outcomes for existing VADs have been improving. Dr. Mark Slaughter of the University of Louisville showed interim data demonstrating dramatic improvements in survival over time among DT HeartMate II patients. In particular, while a cohort of 38 early HeartMate II implants in DT from select centers (March 2005-May 2007) experienced a 2 year survival rate of only 58%, a more recent cohort of 55 HeartMate II implants in DT (June 2007 – April 2009) from the same centers had approximately an 85-90% survival rate at 21 months. Dr. Slaughter noted that the two cohorts included very similar patients, and he attributed the difference to improved selection, operative technique and post-operative care. Dr. Slaughter expects to present the full data set, including 24 month survival for the latest cohort at the upcoming ISHLT meeting in Chicago (April 21-24, 2010). It will be interesting to see if these improvements in overall survival are accompanied by significant improvements in clotting and bleeding. If so, the degree to which the Levacor can differentiate itself on bleeding may be reduced. In sum, although we believe that, overall, LVAD implantation has already proven to be far superior to medical therapy for many heart failure patients, we also accept that the bleeding episodes associated with these devices are frustrating, expensive and potentially-life threatening. The FDA is aware of the bleeding issue as well, evidenced by a post-approval study it requested from Thoratec following the recent approval of the HeartMate II in DT. This small trial will examine the relationship between the HeartMate II and the incidence of acquired von Willebrand’s Disease (VWD). Recent studies suggest that the frequent bleeding episodes experienced by many LVAD patients, including those with the HeartMate II, may be due to an acquired VWD. See, e.g., Ulrich Geisen, Non-surgical bleeding in patients with ventricular assist devices could be explained by acquired von Willebrand disease, Eur J. Cardiothoracic Surg. 33 (2008) 679-684. VWD is a disorder characterized by poor functioning of von Willebrand’s factor, a protein produced by endothelial cells that helps platelets to clump together and bind to a vessel wall, thereby forming blood clots. Von Willebrand’s factor is a relatively large protein that needs to be bound to other copies of itself (thereby forming multimers) in order to function properly. It has been hypothesized that high shear stress caused by some LVADs results in breakage of von Willebrand factor multimers, preventing these multimers from effectively binding collagen and platelets, resulting in a tendency to bleed. For example, patients


with severe aortic stenosis often develop an acquired VWD due to high shear stress which then typically resolves upon aortic valve replacement. VWD has also been shown to occur in patients implanted with LVADs, and to resolve upon heart transplantation. See, e.g., Severely Impaired von Willebrand Factor-Dependent Platelet Aggregation in Patients with a Continuous-Flow LVAD (HeartMate II), JACC 2009 53(3):2162-2167. In support, we note a recent presentation on the relationship between LVADs and Von Willebrand’s Factor (VWF) that was presented at the Society of Thoracic Surgeons conference on January 26, 2010 by Dr. Villamizar of Duke University. Dr. Villamizar looked at 37 HeartMate II patients implanted between July 2008 and April 2009. According to the presentation, all patients demonstrated abnormally low VWF platelet binding activity at 30-days post LVAD implantation. However, this activity was restored to normal within 30 days among patients who subsequently received a heart transplant. Moreover, while bleeds occurred in 27% patients within 30 days post-implantation, there were no differences in VWF activity between bleeders and non-bleeders. This suggests that while impaired VWF activity likely plays a role in bleeding episodes, it is probably not the only factor. More work clearly needs to be done in this area. Finally, during comments made after the presentation, one of Dr. Villamizar’s co-authors (Dr. Crow of Mayo Clinic) noted that in data not presented at STS, similar VWF deficiencies were also seen among patients implanted with Ventracor VentrAssist devices, as well as Thoratec PVADs and HeartMate XVEs.

WorldHeart Offers Potential Solution We believe that a device that can show a dramatic reduction in bleeding from current levels will likely generate significant commercial demand. WorldHeart hypothesizes that the design of its devices may be much gentler on the blood, resulting in less disruption of von Willebrand factor multimers, and less bleeding episodes. In support, WHRT describes that the Levacor’s impeller spins at 2,000 - 2,500 times per minute compared with 6,000 – 15,000 (usually 8,000-10,000) for Thoratec’s HeartMate II. Likewise, WHRT also notes that although HeartWare’s HVAD spins only 2000-3000 times per minute, its shear stress may be higher due to the HVAD’s relatively small gap (of roughly 1/1000 of an inch) between the impeller and device housing through which blood must pass. In contrast, the Levacor’s gap of roughly 7 / 1000 of an inch may reduce shear stress on blood components. WorldHeart also hypothesizes that the Levacor has the potential to reduce the risk of clotting. In addition to disrupting von Willebrand’s factor, high RPMs and high shear stresses are also thought to lead to platelet activation, activation of the extrinsic coagulation system, and the promotion of unwanted clotting. See e.g., John R. Panch et al., Activation of endothelial and coagulation systems in left ventricular assist device recipients, Ann Thorac Surg. 2009, 88(4):1171-9. Under this theory, the Levacor’s gentler blood handling may reduce the risk of both device clotting as well as ischemic stroke, and may even obviate the need for treating patients with anti-coagulation therapy, post-implant. Further, the Levacor also contains a proprietary coating which is designed to mitigate the risk of clotting. At the moment, however, it must be remembered that WorldHeart’s potential advantages here are currently hypothetical and therefore speculative: we have no clinical data yet to demonstrate that the Levacor will be associated with superior bleeding and clotting rates. Moreover, even if the difference in bleeding and clotting rates among devices is shown to be real, we do not know yet whether or not these differences can be reduced through improvements in medical therapy (i.e., better anti-coagulation protocols and/or better anticoagulation drugs) and post-operative care, thereby reducing or decreasing any potential advantage of WorldHeart’s device. For instance, as noted above, significant improvements are already occurring in overall survival, and may also allow for decreases in bleeding and clotting complications. Finally, it must be noted that Thoratec’s HeartMate II and HeartWare’s HVAD both appear to be very good devices, overall, and it will likely take an exceptional device to show improvements over existing technology. In sum, we do agree with World Heart that both bleeding and clotting are significant issues for LVAD patients and a potential area for compelling product differentiation. We also find WorldHeart’s proposed solutions to be plausible, and merit continued monitoring of Levacor’s clinical development. We eagerly await clinical data here.

Weaning Capability for Bridge-to-Recovery We believe that Bridge-to-Recovery may also present an opportunity for the Levacor to differentiate itself from the competition. An estimated 3-5% of LVAD patients experience sufficient recovery of myocardial function after the implantation of an LVAD that the device can eventually be removed, and the patients continue to do well without any implanted device. Another 3-5% of patients may be amenable to recovery if properly weaned from the device. We believe that the Levacor’s ease of explantation and weaning capability may make it an attractive option for patients thought to hold recovery potential. Currently used LVADs are set to a single flow rate by the surgeon in the operating room that is thought to provide ideal support across a range of activity levels. Flow cannot be easily reduced afterwards, and cannot be stopped without causing the device to clot. In contrast, the Levacor’s flow rate can be controlled easily, and the patients themselves are given three separate flow rates that they can switch among while at home. An even higher degree of control is possible for the treating physicians. As shown in the Levacor’s completed European pilot study (discussed in more detail below), this ability to gradually decrease flow rates is critical in


enabling patients to be slowly weaned from support. In particular, the Levacor’s flow rates can be decreased slowly as the heart builds up strength, and the heart can even be tested by temporarily reducing the device to a net zero flow, with flow then resumed afterwards, to allow for continuing support. When combined with off-pump explantation, the Levacor appears poised to become best-in-class for patients deemed candidates for Bridge-to-Recovery. Clinical Development WorldHeart completed an initial human feasibility clinical trial in Europe in 2006, and has recently begun a U.S. clinical trial in BTT in Q1:2010, with a CE mark trial in Europe planned for late 2010 or early 2011, as follows: Pilot Study A feasibility study was performed in Europe involving two male patients (age 67, 78) with end-stage heart failure. The study was structured as a single center, non-blinded, non-randomized prospective trial, designed to observe the performance of the Levacor in the short term “bridge-to-recovery” context. Both patients had NYHA Class IV heart failure for at least six months (LVEF 25% and 22%) and were considered end-stage. Neither patient was transplant eligible, and despite optimal medical management, both were homebound with a history of deteriorating disease and repeated hospitalizations. Although both patients had severe mitral regurgitation, ventricular dysynchrony and single-vessel coronary artery disease, they were each refused other heart failure surgeries due to high expected morbidity and mortality. Both patients were implanted with the Levacor at St. Luke’s Hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece (March 8, 2006; May 10, 2006). At the same time, both patients underwent mitral valve repair and coronary-artery bypass, with one of the patients also undergoing aortic valve replacement. With the Levacor in place, the patients underwent three treatment phases. During the first phase (15 days for patient 1; 6 days for patient 2), LVAD flows were maintained between 5 and 5.5 liters of flow per minute to allow the heart to rest while the Levacor assumed almost all of the required cardiac output. During the second phase (until day 57 for patient 1; until day 69 for patient 2), flow rates were decreased down to approximately 4 liters per minute, in order to prevent ventricular atrophy while still allowing the heart to rest and undergo reverse remodeling. Finally, the flow rates were reduced to 3.5 liters per minute and the patients were mobilized. During this period, flow rates were also temporarily reduced to 1 liter per minute to further challenge and test the heart. Both patients made successful recoveries, and were subsequently explanted (days 85, 89) and discharged from the hospital. As of early 2010, both patients were still alive, healthy (NYHA Class II) and VAD-free over three years after their Levacor VADs were removed. This study demonstrated that the Levacor can be used successfully in the bridge-to-recovery context. Pivotal US Study in Bridge-to-Transplantation On January 8, 2008 WorldHeart announced that it had submitted an Investigational Device Exemption application to the FDA for a pivotal Bridge-to-Transplant study of the Levacor. In August of 2009, WorldHeart announced that it had received conditional approval from the FDA to this trial at ten US centers, with plans for possible inclusion of additional sites after FDA approval of an anticipated supplemental IDE application. The first patient in the trial was implanted on January 13, 2010 at the INTEGRIS Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City. The study is designed to enroll a total of 160 patients. Enrollment criteria include patients listed for heart transplantation. The primary endpoint is survival to the earlier of either 6 months or heart transplantation, or survival for at least 60 days after device removal, with secondary endpoints that include measures of device reliability, quality of life, and incidence of adverse events. As of January 23, 2010, two patients have been implanted in the study, both at the INTEGRIS Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City. We anticipate completion of enrollment within 24 months by late 2011. Although we expect HeartWare’s ongoing BTT trial to complete enrollment after only 20 months, we note that trial enrollment for WHRT may be more difficult once surgeons have two other popular choices (Thoratec’s HeartMate II and HeartWare’s HVAD), instead of the only one faced by HeartWare (Thoratec’s HeartMate II). We expect final data by Q2:2012, with potential approval and launch in Q3:2013. Because the study was designed CMS Category B2, insurance reimbursement of roughly $88,000 for the device is possible. Pivotal US Study in Destination Therapy We also expect the company to study the Levacor in the Destination Therapy context. We anticipate that such as study will enroll approximately 200 patients with end-stage heart failure, not eligible for heart transplantation. The primary endpoint will likely be two-


year survival, free of stroke or device failure, with secondary endpoints that will likely include various measures of quality-of-life and adverse events. We anticipate enrollment to begin by H1:2011, final data by Q3:2014, with potential approval and launch in Q4:2015.

Pivotal International Study in Bridge-to-Transplantation Finally we expect the company to initiate an international trial of the Levacor in Q1:2011 in order to gain CE Marking. While such a trial would likely focus on Bridge-to-Transplantation, we note that approval would allow international usage in the Destination Therapy context as well. We anticipate that such as study will enroll approximately 30 patients with eligible for heart transplantation. The primary endpoint will likely be a composite of survival to the earlier of six months or heart transplantation. We anticipate completion of enrollment by Q2:2012, final data by Q1:2013, with potential approval and launch in Q4:2013. Overview of LVAD Market

The largest market for implantable ventricular assist devices is currently the Bridge-to-Transplant market (although this is expected to change, as discussed in later sections). The BTT market encompasses persons who have met the eligibility requirements to receive a cardiac transplant due to advanced heart failure, and experience deterioration while awaiting the availability of a donor organ.

Despite the many drugs available to treat heart failure, the only cure for advanced disease is cardiac transplantation. Unfortunately, although over 60,000 persons die of heart failure each year in the United States and although experts suggest that roughly 75,000 to 100,000 persons could benefit from heart transplantation (Class IV HF under the age of 70), only about 2,200 transplants are performed each year in this country due to organ shortages. Moreover, at any given time, approximately 3,000 patients are on the U.S. transplant waiting list, and an additional number of patients waiting in Europe. The majority of heart failure patients never make it onto a waiting list, and among those that do, the median wait time for a donor heart is approximately nine months in the United States and much longer elsewhere. Bridge-to-Transplant Approximately 40-50% of those patients on a heart transplant waiting list in the U.S. receive a VAD. Suitability for bridge-to-transplantation generally requires all of the following inclusion criteria: • estimated life expectancy of less than one year without transplant; • objective evidence of physical incapacity due to documented and isolated heart disease; • agreement that previous medical therapy has been optimal and that no medical or surgical therapy other than transplant offers a

realistic expectation of life-extension and functional improvement; AND • strong family support to help the patient prepare for and recover after surgery. As shown below, this bridge-to-transplantation has been shown to both increase survival and quality-of-life while awaiting an available heart. Meanwhile, persons with any of the following exclusion criteria are typically not eligible for cardiac transplant (limiting any potential LVAD therapy to DT):

• more than 65 years old; • severe irreversible pulmonary hypertension; • symptomatic peripheral, renal or cerebro-vascular disease; • chronic lung disease; • insulin-dependent diabetes with evidence of end-organ damage; • cancer within the past 5 years • active systemic infection • other life-threatening disease likely to severely limit life expectancy, even if the transplant is successful.

We believe that, as physicians gain greater experience and comfort with VADs, the number of patients bridged-to-transplant will likely continue to increase. We believe that this will likely occur through both increasing utilization of VADs for patients already on transplant waiting lists, and also through more aggressive pursuit by physicians and the patients-themselves of entry onto a transplant waiting list in order to qualify for a device.


Competitive Landscape A number of LVADs have received FDA approval or are currently under development, as shown in Table 8 below. Table 8. Ventricular Assist Devices Approved or in Development.

Company Device Flow Pattern Flow Type Mag-

Lev Location /

Implantation Size Variable Speed Status

WorldHeart Novacor Pulsatile Volume Displacement No Requires

pocket 1000

grams Yes Withdrawn in 2008.

Thoratec HeartMate VE Pulsatile Volume

Displacement No Requires pocket

1150 grams Yes Withdrawn pre-

2005.

Thoratec HeartMate XVE Pulsatile Volume

Displacement No Requires pocket

1150 grams Yes

Expected to be withdrawn in

2010.

BerlinHeart INCOR Continuous Axial No Requires pocket

200 grams No No US trials

scheduled.

Thoratec HeartMate II Continuous Axial No Requires

pocket 281

grams No Currently

dominant LVAD worldwide.

Ventracor VentrAssist Continuous Centrifugal Partial Requires pocket

298 grams No

Company dissolved in Q3:2009.

Terumo Duraheart Continuous Centrifugal Full Requires pocket

540 grams No

US pivotal trial in BTT ongoing

since June 2008.

World Heart Levacor Continuous Centrifugal Full Requires

pocket 440

grams Yes US pivotal trial in BTT ongoing since Jan 2010

Jarvik Heart Jarvik 2000 Continuous Axial No Intra-ventricular 90 grams Yes US pivotal trial in

BTT ongoing since 2005.

HeartWare HVAD Continuous Centrifugal Partial Intra-pericardial 145 grams No

CE Mark in 2009; US pivotal

trial ongoing.

MicroMed HeartAssist 5

Continuous or Pulsatile Axial No Intra-pericardial 92 grams Yes

CE Mark in 2009; US pivotal trial initiated but

may be redesigned.

HeartWare MVAD Continuous. Centrifugal Partial Intra-pericardial Unknown No In chronic animal studies.

Thoratec HeartMate III Continuous Centrifugal Full Intra-pericardial Unknown No

Expected to begin animal

studies Q1:2010.

HeartWare Longhorn Continuous Centrifugal Partial Intra-ventricular Unknown No In chronic animal studies.

Sources: Company reports, Wedbush Securities research There are currently four LVAD devices approved in the U.S. for bridge-to-transplant in adults, three of which are manufactured by Thoratec (HeartMate VE (HM VE); HeartMate XVE (HM XVE); HM II). The fourth approved device is WorldHeart’s Novacor, which has been withdrawn from the market. In addition, several other devices are in clinical trials with potential approval anticipated over the next three to four years.


At the moment, the only LVAD currently marketed in the United States for BTT is Thoratec’s HeartMate II. In addition, a number of biventricular devices (CardioWest, IVAD, PVAD) are also in use.

Table 9. Competitive Landscape for Bridge-to-Transplant Ventricular Assist Devices.

Pivotal Trial Company Device U.S. Approval

Initiation Size Latest Enrollment

Syncardia CardioWest October 2004 Complete 81 patients Completed September 2002.

Thoratec HeartMate II April 2008 February 2005 194 patients Completed May 2006.

Terumo Duraheart Uncertain July 2008 140 patients Roughly 40 patients as of November 2009.

Jarvik Heart Jarvik 2000 Uncertain April 2005 160 patients Roughly 80 patients as of

November 2009.

HeartWare HVAD Expected 2011-12 August 2008 150 patients 114 Patients as of December 2009.

World Heart Levacor Expected 2013 January 2010 160 patients 2 Patients as of January

2010.

MicroMed HeartAssist 5 Expected 2013 Expected 2010 150-200 patients

expected None yet.

HeartWare MVAD Expected 2015 Expected 2012 150-200 patients expected None yet.

Thoratec HeartMate III Expected 2015 Expected 2012-13 150-200 patients

expected None yet.

HeartWare Longhorn Expected 2015-16 Expected 2013 150-200 patients expected None yet.

Sources: Company reports, Wedbush Securities research

We believe that with the HeartMate II’s approval for BTT in April of 2008, Thoratec will continue to dominate this indication in the near future. The earliest potential competitor to reach the US market is HeartWare’s HVAD in late 2011 or 2012. By the time WorldHeart’s Levacor reaches the market, Terumo’s Duraheart and Jarvik Heart’s Jarvik 2000 may also be on the market, although their trials have been enrolling very slowly.

Bridge-to-Transplant Revenue Model

Our model predicts the following revenues for US BTT commercial sales and clinical trials, including open-access protocols: Levacor - Bridge-to-Transplantation (Pivotal Trials and Commercial Sales)

2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E 2017E

US Patients 3,794 3,909 4,028 4,150 4,276 4,406 4,539 4,677 4,819 Base Case Penetration 0.0% 1.7% 4.0% 3.8% 3.4% 3.9% 4.6% 4.9% 5.2%

Treated 0 67 163 158 146 172 211 230 249 Revenue ($K) $0 $5,767 $14,224 $13,988 $13,886 $17,451 $21,715 $24,102 $26,509

Bull Case Penetration 0.0% 1.7% 4.0% 3.8% 3.9% 6.3% 10.4% 14.8% 19.9%


Bear Case Penetration 0.0% 1.7% 4.0% 3.8% 2.0% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8%


Source: Wedbush Securities Estimates


Destination Therapy (DT) and Bridge-to-Recovery (BTT)

Destination Therapy is a much larger and potentially more lucrative market for the Levacor. Given the paucity of hearts available for transplant, the eligibility requirements for admission to a transplant waiting list are relatively stringent. This stringency exists in order to maximize the expected benefit of each rare heart that is available for transplant. However, it leaves roughly 75,000 to 100,000 patients under the age of 70 with Class IV HF who are not eligible for inclusion on transplant waiting list, of whom 60,000 will die from heart failure each year. The only alternative to implantation for these patients is aggressive medical therapy, whose efficacy is severely limited with a predicted survival of roughly 30% at one year, and 10% by two years.

That said, because of the expense of the device, the invasiveness of its implantation, and the eventual approval of competing devices, we predict that LVADs will only ever capture at most 20% of this market.

Nestled in the market for Destination Therapy appears to be a potential market for Bridge-to-Recovery (BTR). In support, it has been found that between 3-5% of patients treated with LVADs experience a recovery in heart function, many of whom have their devices removed. It is further theorized that another 3-5% of patients might be amenable to having their LVADs removed if they were properly weaned from their devices. As a result, a separate indication for BTR, where patients are implanted with LVADs with the intention of temporary support (as opposed to the indefinite support characterizing DT) for the roughly 3-12 month range may develop.

At the moment, very few LVADs are implanted with an expectation of near-term removal (outside of BTT). However, as noted above, the Levacor’s weaning and off-pump explantation capabilities may provide a key advantage here in the future, and allow BTR to become a more feasible and popular option.

Competitive Landscape

As noted below, we predict potential approval for the Levacor in Destination Therapy in late 2015. In comparison, the HeartMate II recently received approval in January 2010, to be followed by HeartWare’s HVAD, which we currently predict to launch in early 2015.

The competitive landscape for Destination Therapy devices is summarized below:

Table 10. Competitive Landscape for Destination Therapy Ventricular Assist Devices.

Pivotal Trial Company Device U.S. Approval

Initiation Size Latest Enrollment

Thoratec HM II Approved Jan 2010 February 2005 200 patients Completed May 2007

HeartWare HVAD Expected 2014-2015 Expected 2010 200-300 patients expected None Yet

Terumo Duraheart Expected 2014-2015 Expected 2010 200-300 patients expected None Yet

World Heart Levacor Expected 2015 Expected H1:2011 200-300 patients

expected None Yet

Micromed HeartAssist 5 Expected 2015 Expected 2010-2011 200-300 patients

expected None Yet

HeartWare MVAD Expected after 2015 Expected after 2011 200-300 patients expected None Yet

Thoratec HeartMate III Expected after 2015 Expected after 2011 200-300 patients

expected None Yet

HeartWare LongHorn Expected after 2015 Expected after 2011 200-300 patients expected None Yet

Sources: Thoratec Corp., Terumo, HeartWare, World Heart, MicroMed, and Wedbush Securities.


Destination Therapy Revenue Model

Our model predicts the following revenues for US DT commercial sales and clinical trials, including open-access protocols:

Levacor - Destination Therapy (Pivotal Trials and Commercial Sales) 2009E 2010E 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E 2017E

US Patients 76,700 79,027 81,425 83,895 86,441 89,063 91,765 94,549 97,418 Base Case Penetration 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.6% 0.8%

Treated 0 0 107 157 144 133 237 540 802 Revenue ($K) $0 $0 $9,311 $13,877 $13,006 $12,189 $23,242 $54,793 $82,643

Bull Case Penetration 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 3.2% 4.6%

Treated 0 0 107 157 144 133 371 2,983 4,448 Revenue ($K) $0 $0 $9,311 $13,877 $13,006 $12,189 $36,672 $302,700 $458,496

Bear Case Penetration 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

Treated 0 0 107 157 144 133 159 160 140 Revenue ($K) $0 $0 $9,311 $13,877 $13,006 $12,189 $15,473 $16,254 $14,459

Source: Wedbush Securities Estimates


PediaFlow The PediaFlow is a small, magnetically levitated axial rotary VAD intended for use in newborns and infants. The device is designed to provide 0.3 to 1.5 l/min of flow in patients from newborns up to two years old (3-15 kg body weight) for roughly 6 months of support. The Pediaflow is currently being developed by a consortium, consisting of WorldHeart, the University of Pittsburgh, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon and LaunchPoint, and employs proprietary maglev technology similar to that incorporated in the Levacor. WorldHeart reports that development began in 2004, and that prototype devices have been successfully tested in acute and chronic animal studies at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center beginning in 2007. Moreover, the company reported in 2009 that the device had undergone a 70-day duration chronic animal implant. However, the timing of initiation for human clinical trials remains uncertain. We currently anticipate human trials beginning in 2013, with potential approval several years later. Because the market for pediatric VADs is relatively small, and because WorldHeart is only one member of the consortium developing the PediaFlow, we do not anticipate that future PediaFlow sales will have a material effect on WorldHeart revenues. Accordingly, we do not include the PediaFlow in our current valuation model. That said, the PediaFlow is worth mentioning mostly because it serves as the technical foundation for the MiVAD, discussed in more detail below. Minimally Invasive VAD (MiVAD) WorldHeart's Minimally Invasive VAD (MiVAD) is a compact LVAD, approximately the size of an AA battery, which is designed to provide partial long-term circulatory support for the relatively large population of earlier-stage (Class IIIb) heart failure patients. The MiVAD is a fully magnetically levitated rotary blood pump and uses WorldHeart's proprietary technology designed to provide increased safety, durability and performance. The MiVAD is designed to treat patients with Class IIIb heart failure, of whom there are an estimated 550,000 in the United States. While this market is roughly 3-4 times bigger than the traditional LVAD market, the much longer anticipated duration of therapy places significant engineering demands on the device. For example, while traditional BTT implants are typically used for less than a year and DT patients can be expected to survive 2-5 years, devices for Class IIIb patients should to be designed to last at least 7-10 years, given the longer expected survival of this group than Class IV patients. Accordingly, it is critical that the MiVAD have both a high safety profile and also a low incidence of adverse events. WorldHeart expects that its proprietary Mag-Lev technology will provide this necessary safety and durability. In support, the pump is configured to have a single flow path, with no secondary flow paths, thereby improving pumping efficiency

WORLDHEART’S NEXT GENERATION EMBODIES A DRAMATIC TECHNICAL LEAP

Figure 12. Location of implanted MiVAD.

Source: WorldHeart (with permission).

Figure 11. Location of implanted PediaFlow Device.

Source: World Heart Corporation (with permission).


and potentially improving blood flow patterns. Likewise, the rotor is fully magnetically levitated using only one single axis of active control (along the axis of blood flow), with the rest of the axes (radial, tilt) being passively levitated with a unique arrangement of permanent magnets. Finally, the pump contains relatively large flow pathways, designed to reduce the risk of platelet activation and Von Willebrand’s factor breakup, thereby further reducing the risks of clotting and bleeding. On the other hand, since flow requirements are thought to be less demanding for Class IIIb patients, the MiVAD is designed to provide up to 4 liters per minute of flow, compared with up to 10 liters per minute for traditional VADs. Fortunately, the lower flow requirements enable the device to be relatively small in size, and even be implanted further away from the natural heart with a simpler, more minimally-invasive operation than a full-support LVAD. As shown in Figure 12, WorldHeart anticipates placing the MiVAD in a subcutaneous pocket under the skin but above the ribs, much like today's defibrillators and pacemakers. Unlike traditional VADs, which draw blood from the left ventricle and pump it into the aorta, the MiVAD is expected to draw blood from the left atrium and pump it into the right subclavian artery. The company reports that the first clinical MiVAD prototype was designed and built in 2009. In sum, we agree with WorldHeart that durability and blood handling will be critical in Class IIIb patients, and even more important than in the traditional Class IV patients given their longer lifespans and less symptomatic status. We also believe that WorldHeart presents a very compelling story as to why its device should meet the stringent demands of this patient population. That said, it is difficult to currently assess the MiVAD’s true potential given the device’s preclinical status. Clinical Development We currently expect clinical development of the MiVAD to mirror the program structure anticipated for Circulite’s Synergy device, as described below. In particular, we expect WHRT to begin a 3 month CE Mark trial involving roughly 20-30 patients in late 2012 or early 2013, resulting in potential CE Marking in late 2014. Next, we anticipate a potential US pivotal trial beginning in early 2014 and leading to possible approval in 2017 in Bridge-to-Transplant, and 2018 in Destination Therapy. Competitive Landscape The current leader in partial flow LVADs for chronic heart failure is Circulite (Private; Saddle Brook, NJ). Like WorldHeart’s MiVAD, Circulite’s Synergy device is a miniature LVAD designed to enable earlier and less-invasive treatment for a broader population of heart failure patients than traditional full-flow LVADs. Synergy is a micro-pump, the size of a single AA battery (14 mm diameter by 49 mm length) and weighing only 25 grams, yet capable of providing up to 3 liters of flow per minute (See Figure 14). The device contains a hybrid mag-lev and hydrodynamically levitated rotor design (analogous to HeartWare’s HVAD), and also has a proprietary self-washing flow path that is hoped to minimize the risk of thrombus formation. Indeed, in preclinical studies, the Synergy system was shown to be free of thrombus for 4,500 total days even without anticoagulation or platelet inhibition. Like other full flow LVADs, the Synergy is powered via a percutaneous lead that exits the skin of the abdominal wall and is attached to a controller and power system. This power system weighs 3.3 pounds and is designed to power the Synergy for approximately 16-18 hours. The device is designed to allow the heart to rest and recover cardiac function by drawing blood from the left atrium via an inflow cannula, and pumping it back to the body via an outflow graft to the subclavian artery (See Figure 15). Like WHRT’s MiVAD, the Synergy is small enough to be implanted subcutaneously in a “pacemaker-like” pocket under the skin yet above the ribcage, through a minimally-invasive procedure. However, placement of the cannulae currently requires a mini-thoracotomy. Circulite also reports working on a second-generation Synergy version, whose inflow and outflow cannulae are placed via endovascular techniques (See Figure 16), obviating the need for opening the chest.

Figure 14. Circulite’s Synergy Device.

Source: Circulite (with permission).

Figure 13. WorldHeart’s MiVAD.

Source: WorldHeart (with permission).


Like the MiVAD, the Synergy is intended for long-term use in NYHA Class IIIb/early IV patients (INTERMACS 4-6). Figure 15. Configuration of Current Synergy Device. Figure 16. Configuration of Endovascular Synergy Device.

Source: Circulite (with permission). Source: Circulite (with permission). In August 2007, Circulite began enrolling patients in a European Phase I Long-Term Support feasibility trial, designed to evaluate device safety, as well as quality-of-life improvements. Eligibility was directed to ambulatory patients with NYHA Class IIIb or IVa despite medical therapy, who were on heart transplant lists or considered suitable for transplant, and who had a life expectancy of at least 6 months without full VAD support. Endpoints included pump performance, hemodynamic benefits, end organ function, exercise tolerance and safety. This three-center trial is intended to support potential CE Marking. On March 30, 2009, at the Annual Meeting of the American College of Cardiology, Circulite presented data from the first 16 patients (a total of 22 had been implanted by that time). Duration of support ranged from 6 -2 13 (median 87) days, and results showed statistically significant improvements in hemodynamic function, both at 24 hours and over the longer-term: Table 17. Hemodynamic Data for Synergy Feasibility Study.

Measure Baseline (n=16) 24 hours (n=16) Chronic (10±6 weeks) (n=9) Cardiac Index 2.0 3.3 (p < 0.001) 2.8 (p = 0.01) Wedge pressure 30 20.7 (p = 0.01) 18 (p = 0.001) Mean arterial pressure 67 70 80 (p = 0.01) Pulmonary Artery Systolic Pressure

60 50 (p = 0.02) 49 (p = 0.02)

Pulmonary Artery Diastolic Pressure

29.7 20.7 (p = 0.01) ~21.5 (p = 0.02)

Source: Circulite. These early results suggest that partial support is capable of interrupting the progressive hemodynamic deterioration typically seen in patients with late stage heart failure. However, the trial was complicated by device thrombosis in eight patients, requiring ten pump exchanges (one of which was complicated by stroke). The rate of other complications, including pump pocket hematoma (3/16), surgical bleeding (2/16), hemolysis (2/16) and sepsis (2/16) was also relatively high. Thrombosis was thought to be due to a problem with the original rotor design. After this rotor was redesigned to include a larger washout track, the issue of thrombosis appeared to be resolved. That said, we do not yet have long-term data for the Synergy device. Circulite anticipates CE Marking by YE:2010, followed by initiation of a US feasibility trial late 2010 or early 2011, and initiation of a pivotal US trial in 2011 or 2012. We currently anticipate a potential US launch in H2:2014.


Market Projections As shown in Table 18 below, there are roughly 5.5 million persons currently in the United States with heart failure. Of these, we estimate that here are approximately 550,000 patients in this country with NYHA Class IIIb or IVa Heart Failure, the target population for the MiVAD. Assuming, that only 10% of these patients are treated with a partial circulatory support device, the peak penetration could reach over 50,000 patients.

Table 18. Number of U.S. Heart Failure Patients by NYHA Class Class I Class II Class IIIa Class IIIb Class IVa Class IV

Total HF patients (US) 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 % in class 40.0% 30.0% 17.5% 7.5% 2.5% 2.5% Patients in class 2,200,000 1,650,000 962,500 412,500 137,500 137,500

Source: Wedbush Securities estimates. Accordingly, we estimate the following potential penetration rate for the MiVAD through 2020. We assume that MiVAD will sell at a discount to Levacor, and estimate a price of $60,000 at our estimated launch in 2018. Although we assume a rather brisk launch (100% growth per quarter in the first year), we note that our estimates represent only a tiny fraction of the overall patient population.

Table 19. MiVAD Revenue Estimates

FY:2018 FY:2019 FY:2020

Patient population 550,000 550,000 550,000

Penetration 0.02% 0.10% 0.20%

MiVAD patients 110 550 1,100

ASP $60,000 $61,200 $62,424

Sales (000) $6,600 $33,660 $68,666

Growth n/a 400% 100% Source: Wedbush Securities estimates. Considering that no devices are approved yet in this indication, and that the MiVAD is currently in preclinical development, we acknowledge that our estimates are highly speculative. For these reasons, we currently exclude MiVAD sales from our valuation.


1st Generation Novacor LVAS The Novacor LVAS was an implantable, pulsatile VAD, which was first implanted clinically in 1984 and had been implanted in more than 1,700 patients worldwide, although it is no longer commercially available. The Novacor was an electromagnetically-driven pump, about the size of a human heart, providing circulatory support for patients with life-threatening heart failure by taking over part or all of the workload of the left ventricle of the heart. The Novacor LVAS was self-regulating, responding instantaneously to the recipient’s changing heartbeat and circulatory demands. WorldHeart acquired the Novacor from Edwards Lifesciences in 2000. Under Edwards, the Novacor received CE Marking in Europe in 1994, and FDA approval for Bridge-to-Transplant in 1998. In 2000, a feasibility study (INTrEPID) was initiated for the Novacor in Destination Therapy, and a pivotal Destination Therapy trial (RELIANT) began in 2004, although it was subsequently terminated in 2006: Clinical Development Novacor’s clinical development is summarized briefly below:

INTrEPID Feasibility Study in Destination Therapy

Between 2000 and 2003, WorldHeart performed a feasibility study of the Novacor in Destination Therapy, named Investigation of Nontransplant-Eligible Patients Who Are Inotrope-Dependent (INTrEPID). The study was structured as a nonrandomized, 2-arm clinical trial conducted at 13 centers in the U.S. and Canada with experience implanting the Novacor LVAD in Bridge to Transplantation. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 6 months, with secondary endpoints including adverse events, functional capacity, and health-related quality-of-life. Eligible patients had severe left ventricular dysfunction for at least months, NYHA functional class IV symptoms for at least 3 months, an ejection fraction of less than 25%, and were required to fail two attempts at weaning from inotropic support separated by at least 7 days. Fifty-five patients were enrolled in the trial, of whom 37 elected to undergo Novacor implantation, with the remaining 18 electing to be treated with optimal medical management. Novacor treated patients had 6 month and 12 month survival rates of 46% and 27%, respectively. In comparison, a cohort of patients treated with optimal medical therapy had 6 month and 12 month survival rates of only 22% and 11%, respectively. Based on these promising albeit non-randomized results, WorldHeart decided to proceed with a pivotal trial in Destination Therapy, as described below.

RELIANT Trial in Destination Therapy WorldHeart’s pivotal DT trial, termed (Randomized Evaluation of the Novacor(R) LVAS In A Non-Transplant Population (RELIANT), began enrollment in July of 2004. Although RELIANT was initially designed to enroll up to 390 patients at 40 US centers, the FDA agreed to modify the protocol in June of 2006 to only 208 patients. Moreover, inclusion criteria were widened to also include patients with NYHA Class IIIB Heart Failure who are not transplant candidates, as well as those with NYHA Class IV. In addition, patients

WORLDHEART HAS A DECADE OF EXPERIENCE IN THE VAD MARKET

Figure 20. WorldHeart’s Novacor Device.

Source: World Heart Corporation (with permission).


needing replacement of a Thoratec HeartMate XVE were also deemed eligible. Finally, the primary endpoint, formerly only patient survival, was changed to a composite of patient survival, free of device replacement and neurologic events. Secondary endpoints included measures of quality of life, adverse events and cost effectiveness. As of June 2006, 38 patients had been enrolled in the trial. Unfortunately, WorldHeart began to experience increasing financial duress in the second half of 2006, attributed to a shift away from first generation LVADs like the Novacor to newer devices such as Thoratec’s HeartMate II. During the company’s Q3:2006 quarterly conference call dated November 14, 2006, the company reported only $1.5 million in cash at the end of September 30, 2006. During the call the company announced a major corporate restructuring, including a planned move of WHRT’s corporate facilities from Oakland, California to Salt Lake City, Utah. WHRT also reported the raise of $14.1 million through a private placement. One month after the restructuring announcement, on December 14, 2006, the company announced that it was discontinuing enrollment of the RELIANT trial. Management noted that, given improvements to VAD technology, the company determined that shifting focus to a next-generation mag-lev device like the Levacor would be a better investment of company resources than continuing to develop and support the Novacor / Novacor II platform. The following year, WorldHeart continued to market the Novacor, primarily for Bridge-to-Transplant. During its 22 years of clinical use, the Novacor had been implanted in over 1,800 patients worldwide. Moreover, during its tenure, the Novacor achieved the following key clinical milestones:

• 2005: Novacor recipient is the first patient in the US to be weaned successfully from a ventricular assist device. • 2004: Novacor recipient continues to hold world record for continuous support on a single device, over 4 years. • 2002: Novacor becomes the first implanted heart assist device to support a single patient for longer than five years.

The Novacor was eventually withdrawn from the market worldwide in 2008.

The United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) currently provide for public reimbursement of VADs used as a BTT and in DT, and many state Medicaid programs also provide for public reimbursement as well. In addition, the majority of private insurance carriers also provide for coverage for VAD use. In October of 2007, the CMS promulgated a final rule allowing for the implementation of Medical Severity Diagnostic Related Groups (MSDRGs). Unlike the prior DRG system the MSDRG system also incorporate the presence of complications or other diseases a patient may have. Hospitals now are reimbursed for both inpatient and outpatients costs. Fortunately for WorldHeart, the current market leader Thoratec has been very successful in obtaining yearly increases for these DRGs. For example, average hospital reimbursement was less than $40,000 in 2002, despite mean overall hospital costs averaging around $210,000. In 2009, average reimbursement grew to approximately $190,000, while mean hospital costs fell to less than $130,000. We believe that this roughly $60,000 delta should help encourage hospitals to embrace LVAD technology. During the Levacor’s clinical trials, we expect the company to be reimbursed roughly $85,000 for each device implanted.

Levacor-related Technology WorldHeart holds rights to seven granted United States patents related to the Levacor implantable blood pump technology, either as sole owner or with exclusive licenses from the co-owners. These patents are reported to have 8 to 11 years remaining life before expiration. A subset of these patents has also been filed and granted in the major European countries, in Canada and in Australia. WorldHeart also holds exclusive licenses to four additional patents, with remaining lives of roughly seven years. Finally, two patents related to control of rotary blood pumps, with seven years remaining life, are non-exclusively licensed by WHRT. Additional patent applications are also pending. Particular licenses related to the Levacor include: (1) an exclusive license from the University of Utah to four issued patents for which WorldHeart has no future obligations; (2) an exclusive royalty-based license to four patents from the University of Virginia; (3) an exclusive royalty-based license from the University of Pittsburgh; and (4) a royalty-based agreement with The Heart Lung Institute.

REIMBURSEMENT

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND LICENSING AGREEMENTS


In September 2008, WHRT purchased technology relating to the physiological control of rotary blood pumps from LaunchPoint, as well as exclusive R&D services for approximately two years. In return, WHRT agree to pay LaunchPoint $230,000 (to be paid in equal installments of $10,000 over 23 months beginning in October 2008), as well as a 0.5% royalty on net future sales through 2020 of products using the licensed technology. On November 28, 2008, WHRT also entered into an agreement with Vertellus Specialties UK Limited under which Vertellus agreed to supply WHRT with a proprietary compound for to decrease the risk of blood clotting. Vertellus also granted WHRT an exclusive sub-license to apply the product in processing the Levacor Rotary VADs and to sell such VADs worldwide.

We consider execution risk to be lowered by management’s considerable experience WorldHeart is led by what we consider to be an experienced management team with a valuable background in developing and commercializing new medical devices:

Table 21. Management of World Heart Corporation.

Sources: World Heart Corporation and Wedbush Securities.

Name Position Experience John Alexander Martin President and Chief Executive

Officer Mr. Martin joined WorldHeart as Director, President and CEO in February 2009 from Edwards Lifesciences, where he was President of the North American Region and Corporate Vice President since 2004. Earlier, Mr. Martin was with Cordis Corporation, a Johnson and Johnson company, where he served as Senior Vice President of International and prior to that, Vice President of Sales and Marketing. Before Cordis, Mr. Martin served in sales, marketing and business development management positions at several institutions, including C.R. Bards' USCI division, Cambridge Heart and IMED Corporation. He has also served as Director of the Emergency Medical Services at The Medical Center at Bowling Green. Mr. Martin received a bachelor's degree from the University of Kentucky at Lexington.

Jal S. Jassawalla MSc MBA

Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer

Mr. Jassawalla is currently WHRT’s Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer. Mr. Jassawalla also served as the company’s director from December 2005 and was President and Chief Executive Officer from July 2004 until February 2009. From June 2000 to July 2004, Mr. Jassawalla also served as Senior Vice President and subsequently as Executive Vice President and Chief Technical Officer. Mr. Jassawalla was a co-founder of Novacor Medical Corporation in 1979, where he served as Vice President of Research and Development from 1988 to 2000 in Baxter Healthcare Corporation's Novacor Division. Mr. Jassawalla received his Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University, and an MBA from the University of California, Berkeley, with specialization in Finance. He is a fellow of the American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering.

Morgan Brown MBA CPA

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Mr. Brown joined WorldHeart in 2008 from Lifetree Clinical Research where he served as Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President. Earlier, Mr. Brown was with NPS Pharmaceuticals Inc., from 2000 to 2008, where he served as Vice President Finance and Treasurer, as well as KPMG LLP in Salt Lake City. He is a licensed certified public accountant in Utah and has has earned a master's degree in business administration from the University of Utah and a bachelor's degree in accounting from Utah State University.

COMPANY BACKGROUND


Recent Financing History WHRT’s recent financing-related history is summarized briefly below: Date Financing event Nov-Dec 2006

Private placement consisting of two tranches. The first tranche, completed in November 2006, consisted of 36,667 common shares at $75.00 per share for a total of $2.75 million. The second tranche, completed in December 2006, raised $11.31 million on the sale 150,667 common shares. Gross proceeds from both tranches of the financing totaled approximately $14.1 million at a price of $75.00 per common share. In addition, we incurred placement agent fees equal to 6% of the gross proceeds payable in common shares totaling approximately 11,310 common shares. Under the terms of the transaction, WHRT registered for resale all of the common shares issued in both tranches.

Nov 2006 WorldHeart announced a significant restructuring and realignment of our business operations to better focus on the development of the next-generation Levacor VAD. The restructuring program reduced manufacturing, selling and administrative costs, primarily associated with the Novacor LVAS product. The program included a reduction in workforce of 41 persons. The costs attributable to the restructuring recorded during the year ended December 31, 2006 were $0.6 million consisting of severance costs and a fixed assets write-down. In addition, WorldHeart wrote-off $4.6 million ($3.5 million and $1.1 million in the third and fourth quarters of 2006, respectively) of raw material, in-process and finished goods inventory associated with the Novacor LVAS product, which management had determined would not be utilized in future periods.

May 2007 10-1 reverse stock split announced May 30, 2007. Dec 2007 WorldHeart entered into a note purchase agreement with Abiomed, Inc. under which WHRT issued a secured

convertible promissory note to Abiomed in the principal amount of $5.0 million. The note was secured by WHRT’s assets and was convertible into WHRT common shares, in whole or in part, at Abiomed’s option, at approximately $52.50 per share. On May 9, 2008, WorldHeart reported that its then-available cash was insufficient to pay the company’s obligations, resulting in default under the Abiomed Note.

Jun 2008 WorldHeart entered into a recapitalization agreement with its investor base, including: Abiomed, Venrock, Special Situations Fund and New Leaf. Under the agreement, WorldHeart agreed to a 30-1 reverse stock split, which took place on October 27, 2008, as well as changes to the board of directors. WorldHeart also entered an additional agreement with Abiomed under which the full amount owed by WorldHeart to Abiomed was converted into 95,555 of WHRT common shares.

Aug 2008 WorldHeart announced a phased consolidation into a primary facility in Salt Lake City, Utah. On August 22, 2008, WHRT completed the first phase of our consolidation plan and eliminated five positions at our Oakland facility, including the position of Vice President of Manufacturing. On February 4, 2009, WHRT appointed Salt Lake City based Mr. John Alexander Martin as CEO. Mr. Jal S. Jassawalla, former President and CEO, remained in Oakland (along with certain key employees in areas such as Research and Development, Clinical Affairs and Regulatory Affairs), and continued to serve as Chief Technology Officer.

Jun 2008 On June 13, 2008, WorldHeart voluntarily delisted its common shares from the Toronto Stock Exchange, as the company’s business moved primarily to the United States in 2005 and as of June 2008 approximately 80% of the stock trades occurred on the NASDAQ. WHRT common shares continue to be listed on the NASDAQ Capital Market

Jan 2010 On January 21, 2010, WHRT raised $7.1 million (net) in a private placement of 1,418,726 units comprising of one share of common stock and two warrants. The warrants are exercisable at $4.90, with half the warrants expiring 15 months from date of issue and the remainder expiring 5 years from date of issue.

Source: World Heart Corporation and Wedbush Securities.

Manufacturing WorldHeart currently manufactures, distributes and services its commercial products at the company’s Salt Lake City facility. This facility is comprised of 32,888 square feet of research and office space of which 24,044 is leased through January 31, 2011, and the remainder is leased through January 31, 2013. The company currently has capacity to manufacture roughly 10 - 12 devices per month. As commercialization approaches, we expect WorldHeart to ramp up its internal production capacity significantly. Under the revised distribution agreement with Abiomed, WorldHeart is required to negotiate in good faith distribution arrangements with Abiomed before engaging any third party distributors for the company’s products. However, WorldHeart does retain the right, without negotiating with Abiomed, to distribute its own products directly. Sales, Marketing and Distribution Until the company’s restructuring in November 2006, WorldHeart sold directly within the United States through a dedicated sales force, and approximately 41% and 76% of company’s 2008 and 2007 revenue, respectively, came from sales of the Novacor LVAS in


the United States. As of 2008, however, WorldHeart no longer distributes the Novacor LVAS in the US or Europe and currently only provides support for existing Novacor recipients. As a result, the company no longer maintains a sales or marketing division. However, upon approval of the Levacor, we expect WorldHeart to direct its sales and marketing efforts to the approximately 105 hospitals in the U.S. that perform heart transplants, as well as the approximately 100 such hospitals in Europe. We also expect the company to focus on the minority of open-heart surgery centers capable of implanting LVADs.

Despite our enthusiasm for WorldHeart and its commercial potential, any investment, and particularly one in the medical device field involves uncertainty and inherent risk. Several of these risks are outlined below: Intellectual Property Risk. While we believe that WorldHeart generally has a strong IP position, there is some inherent uncertainty in both the interpretation of patent claims and the application of patent law. In the event that WorldHeart is forced to enforce one of its patents against a competitor, the litigation process could prove to be expensive, time-consuming and ultimately unsuccessful. Moreover, when the Company’s existing patents expire, the Company may be unable to prevent third-parties from copying its products. Furthermore, competitors might challenge the validity or scope of WorldHeart’s patents in court, or simply find ways around them. Finally, third-party patents that are not licensed to WorldHeart and which could prevent WorldHeart from commercializing its own product candidates could be granted in the future or even already exist. Commercialization Risk. Given WorldHeart’s small size and lack of a meaningful commercial track-record, we believe that the company faces commercialization risk. This risk is heightened by the relative sophistication and high degree of experience required for a sales-force in this area. Moreover, it is possible that many patients will likely choose to not undergo HVAD implantation given the invasiveness of the procedure. In addition, the prohibitive expense of the device may also limit commercial uptake. Manufacturing Risk. WorldHeart is a small company with relatively limited manufacturing capacity. Expanding this capacity will likely prove to be expensive and time-consuming, and may ultimately be unsuccessful. Moreover, WorldHeart currently relies on third-party suppliers for some of its components. In the future, these third-parties may be unable or unwilling to supply WorldHeart with these components on reasonable commercial terms, potentially forcing the company to delay or stop production. Finally, given the complexity and life-critical nature of ventricular assist devices, some degree of quality-control risk will always remain for these products. Clinical Risk. Considering that the WorldHeart’s device candidates are directed to a life-supporting indication in a very sick patient population, a relatively high degree of clinical risk exists, particularly when considering the known complications associated with LVADs, including device failure bleeding, infections and stroke. This risk is heightened for the Levacor by the small number of patients on whom we have clinical data, as well as for preclinical PediaFlow and MiVAD devices. Regulatory Risk. The Levacor, PediaFlow and MiVAD have not yet received regulatory approval in any indication and may never do so, given the stringency of the regulatory process for ventricular assist devices. Even after devices are approved, the FDA and other national agencies retain jurisdiction and the right to remove them from the market. Accordingly, a relatively high degree of regulatory risk will remain for the entire lifespan of each of WorldHeart’s products, given their purpose, their target population and highly invasive nature. Competition Risk. Each of WorldHeart’s product candidates is directed to an indication already being targeted by multiple existing device products and/or device candidates. Even if the safety and efficacy suggested by earlier data is subsequently confirmed and these devices are approved by the FDA, active competition will almost certainly remain from third parties, some of which are larger and have significantly more resources and commercialization experience than WorldHeart. Moreover, additional device candidates are currently being developed by third parties, and even more can be expected in the future. Financing Risk. Given WorldHeart’s cash burn required to develop the Levacor, we believe that financing risk exists for the Company. The development of cardiac medical devices is a complicated and expensive process. Should WorldHeart experience any significant or unexpected delays in development, the need for further financing might be possible.

RISKS TO OUR INVESTMENT THESIS


Car

dio

vasc

ula

r, D

evic

es a

nd

Reg

ener

ativ

e

WorldHeart (WHRT: NASDAQ) Wedbush PacGrow Life SciencesHistorical and Projected Income Statement Duane Nash, MD JD MBA(In thousands of US$ except per share data) Akiva Felt(Fiscal Year Ends on December 31)

FiscalCalendar 12/31/2008 3/30/2009 6/30/2009 9/30/2009 12/31/2009 12/31/2009 3/30/2010 6/30/2010 9/30/2010 12/31/2010 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 12/31/2012

Fiscal FY:08A Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY:09E Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY:10E FY:11E FY:12ERevenues:

Net Product Sales $ 1,732 $ 5 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 5 $ 341 $ 1,114 $ 1,720 $ 2,591 $ 5,767 $ 37,596 $ 41,180 CARDIOVASCULAR $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 341 $ 1,114 $ 1,720 $ 2,591 $ 5,767 $ 37,596 $ 41,180

European Levacor Sales $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 14,061 $ 13,315 Levacor in BTT (US) $ $ $ 341 $ 1,114 $ 1,720 $ 2,591 $ 5,767 $ 14,224 $ 13,988 Levacor in DT (US) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 9,311 $ 13,877

Total Revenues $ 1,732 $ 5 $ $ $ $ 5 $ 341 $ 1,114 $ 1,720 $ 2,591 $ 5,767 $ 37,596 $ 41,180

Cost of Goods 992 28 25 25 ‐ 78 222 724 1,101 1,632 3,679 23,013 22,018 Gross Profit 740 (23) (25) (25) ‐ (73) 119 390 619 959 2,087 14,584 19,163 Cost and Expenses: Sales, General and Administrative 4,752 1,443 1,476 1,315 1,341 5,575 1,475 1,505 1,535 1,566 6,080 6,679 7,264 R&D 9,048 2,104 2,608 2,557 2,608 9,877 2,739 2,876 3,019 3,170 11,804 15,031 18,270 Clinical and Marketing Support 6,479 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Amortization of Intangibles 191 48 48 12 Other 131 53 198 98 103 452 108 114 119 125 466 567 689 Total Operating Expenses 20,601 3,647 4,330 3,982 4,052 15,904 4,322 4,494 4,673 4,861 18,350 22,277 26,223

Operating Income (Loss) (19,861) (3,671) (4,355) (4,007) (4,052) (16,085) (4,203) (4,104) (4,054) (3,902) (16,263) (7,693) (7,060)Other Income (Expense)Unrealized Foreign Exchange Gain (Loss) 18 12 (18) (13) (13) (33) (13) (13) (13) (13) (53) (53) (53)Investment and Other Income 142 8 6 5 Interest Income (Expense) (1,659) (0) (0) (0)Debt Inducement Expense, Non‐Cash (3,914) ‐ Income Before Income Taxes (25,317) (3,651) (4,367) (4,016) (4,066) (16,118) (4,216) (4,117) (4,067) (3,916) (16,316) (7,747) (7,113)Provision for Income Taxes (benefit) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Net Income (Loss) $ (25,317) $ (3,651) $ (4,367) $ (4,016) $ (4,066) $ (16,118) $ (4,216) $ (4,117) $ (4,067) $ (3,916) $ (16,316) $ (7,747) $ (7,113)

EPS (Basic and Diluted) (4.37) (0.28) (0.33) (0.30) (0.31) (1.21) (0.29) (0.28) (0.24) (0.23) (1.02) (0.45) (0.41)

Weighted Shares Outstanding (Basic) 5,799 13,254 13,254 13,273 13,298 13,270 14,717 14,742 17,242 17,267 15,992 17,317 17,404 Total Shares Outstanding (Diluted) 5,799 13,254 13,254 13,273 13,298 13,270 17,554 17,579 20,079 20,104 18,829 20,154 20,241

2010E2009E2008A 2011E 2012E

Source: Company reports, Wedbush Securities estimates


Covered Public Companies Mentioned in this Report (close 2/1/10)

Company Ticker Price Rating Fair ValueAbiomed ABMD $7.93 NEUTRAL $13Edwards LifeSciences EW $90.23 NEUTRAL $65HeartWare HTWR $39.20 OUTPERFORM $42Thoratec THOR $28.52 OUTPERFORM $34

WEDBUSH SECURITIES

Wedbush does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. Thus, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report. Investors should consider this report as only a single

factor in making their investment decision.

ANALYST CERTIFICATION

I, Duane Nash, certify that the views expressed in this report accurately reflect my personal opinion and that I have not and will not, directly or indirectly, receive compensation or other payments in connection with my specific recommendations or views contained in this report.

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES

Disclosure information regarding historical ratings and price targets is available at http://www.wedbush.com/ResearchDisclosure/DisclosureQ409.pdf

INVESTMENT RATINGS OUTPERFORM – Expect the total return of the stock to outperform relative to the median total return of the analyst’s (or the analyst’s team) coverage universe over the next 6-12 months. NEUTRAL – Expect the total return of the stock to perform in-line with the median total return of the analyst’s (or the analyst’s team) coverage universe over the next 6-12 months. UNDERPERFORM – Expect the total return of the stock to underperform relative to the median total return of the analyst’s (or the analyst’s team) coverage universe over the next 6-12 months. The Investment Ratings are based on the expected performance of a stock (based on anticipated total return to price target) relative to the other stocks in the analyst’s coverage universe (or the analyst’s team coverage).* DISTRIBUTION OF RATINGS (as of December 31, 2009) OUTPERFORM – 46% (8% of this rating category were investment banking clients within the last 12 months). NEUTRAL – 39% (2% of this rating category were investment banking clients within the last 12 months). UNDERPERFORM – 15% (0% of this rating category were investment banking clients within the last 12 months). The Distribution of Ratings is required by FINRA rules; however, WS’ stock ratings of Outperform, Neutral, and Underperform most closely conform to Buy, Hold, and Sell, respectively. Please note, however, the definitions are not the same as WS’ stock ratings are on a relative basis.

The analysts responsible for preparing research reports do not receive compensation based on specific investment banking activity. The analysts receive compensation that is based upon various factors including WS’ total revenues, a portion of which are generated by WS’ investment banking activities. WS makes a market in the securities mentioned herein.


WS co-managed a public offering of securities for Heartware (HTWR) and Rockwell Medical (RMTI) within the last 12 months. WS has received compensation for investment banking services from Heartware (HTWR) and Rockwell Medical (RMTI) within the last 12 months. WS provided investment banking services to Heartware (HTWR), Rockwell Medical (RMTI) and World Heart (WHRT) within the last 12 months. WS expects to receive compensation for investment banking services from World Heart (WHRT) within the next 3 months. * WS changed its rating system from (Strong Buy/Buy/Hold/Sell) to (Outperform/ Neutral/Underperform) on July 14, 2009. Please access the attached hyperlink for WS’ Coverage Universe: http://www.wedbush.com/inside/CapitalMarkets/CoverageList.asp Applicable disclosure information is also available upon request by contacting Ellen Kang in the Research Department at (213) 688-4529, by email to [email protected], or the Business Conduct Department at (213) 688-8090. You may also submit a written request to the following: Business Conduct Department, 1000 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90017.

OTHER DISCLOSURES RESEARCH DEPT. * (213) 688-4505 * www.wedbush.com

EQUITY TRADING Los Angeles (213) 688-4470 / (800) 421-0178 * EQUITY SALES Los Angeles (800) 444-8076 CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS (213) 688-8000

The information herein is based on sources that we consider reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. The information contained herein is not a representation by this corporation, nor is any recommendation made herein based on any privileged information. This information is not intended to be nor should it be relied upon as a complete record or analysis; neither is it an offer nor a solicitation of an offer to sell or buy any security mentioned herein. This firm, Wedbush Securities, its officers, employees, and members of their families, or any one or more of them, and its discretionary and advisory accounts, may have a position in any security discussed herein or in related securities and may make, from time to time, purchases or sales thereof in the open market or otherwise. The information and expressions of opinion contained herein are subject to change without further notice. The herein mentioned securities may be sold to or bought from customers on a principal basis by this firm. Additional information with respect to the information contained herein may be obtained upon request.

EQUITY RESEARCH DEPARTMENT (213) 688-4529

DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH Mark D. Benson (213) 688-4435

CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES Consumer Products Rommel T. Dionisio ………………..……… (213) 688-4418 Kurt M. Frederick, CPA …………………… (213) 688-4459 Education Ariel Sokol …………………..…………...... (212) 668-9874 David Kwon………………………………… (212) 938-9928 Entertainment Retail Michael Pachter …………………..……..... (213) 688-4474 Chris White…………..….…………………. (213) 688-4423 Edward Woo, CFA …………………….….. (213) 688-4382 Gaming, Lodging & Leisure Rachael Rothman, CFA..….…………….… (212) 938-9940 Amanda Bryant, CFA…………………….… (212) 938-9942 Yinan Zhao………………………………..… (212) 938-9941

Restaurants Rachael Rothman, CFA…...…………….… (212) 938-9940 Michael Sang, CPA…..……………………. (212) 938-9943

Specialty Retail: Hardlines Joan L. Storms, CFA ……………………… (213) 688-4537 John Garrett…………………………...…… (213) 688-4523

Camilo Lyon …………...…………………… (212) 938-9924

Specialty Retail: Softlines Betty Chen …………………..…………...... (415) 273-7328 Connie Wong…….…………..…………..... (415) 273-7315

Specialty Retail: Sporting Goods Camilo Lyon …..………………….…..….… (212) 938-9924 ENTERTAINMENT AND MEDIA Advertising & Broadcasting James Dix, CFA………………….…..….… (213) 688-4315 Entertainment: Software Michael Pachter …………………...…….… (213) 688-4474 Edward Woo, CFA ………….…………….. (213) 688-4382 Chris White…………..….…………………. (213) 688-4423 Entertainment: Toys Chris White…………..………….…………. (213) 688-4423 Edward Woo, CFA …………………….….. (213) 688-4382 Movies & Entertainment Chris White…………..…...………..…….... (213) 688-4423 Michael Pachter….….………….…………. (213) 688-4474 Internet Advertising/Media Edward Woo, CFA…….…………….…..… (213) 688-4382 INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AND CLEAN TECHNOLOGY Industrial Growth Al Kaschalk....……..….……………………. (213) 688-4539 Kevin Lee…....……..….……………………. (213) 688-4303

Kenneth Herbert......….……………………. (415) 274-6875

Clean Technology Craig Irwin....……..….…………………..…. (212) 938-9926

TECHNOLOGY Communications Equipment Rohit Chopra …………………...…………. (212) 668-9871 Sanjit Singh …………………...…………... (212) 938-9922 Communications Technology Matthew Robison………..……...…………. (415) 263-6659 Leo Choi ………………………………….… (415) 263-6669 Datacenter Technologies Kaushik Roy…...………………...…………. (415) 274-6873 Hemant Hebbar..………………...…………. (415) 274-6874

Software: Enterprise / Application Michael B. Nemeroff.……………..………. (212) 668-9876 David Giesecke…...…..…………………... (212) 938-9925 Software: Infrastructure J. Derrick Wood, CFA…………..…………. (415) 274-6822 David Kaczorowski….……………………….(415) 274-6883 Internet: Infrastructure Kerry Rice, CPA …………………………… (213) 688-4538 Semiconductors Patrick Wang…………………………...…. (212) 938-9938 Michael Lucarelli..………………...…….…. (212) 938-9927

Betsy Van Hees………………………….... (415) 274-6869 Telecommunications Software Scott P. Sutherland, CFA ……………..…. (213) 688-4522 Suhail Chandy …………………...……..…. (213) 688-4380 Financial Technology Gil B. Luria....….…..………....……………. (213) 688-4501 Nick Setyan……....……..…………………. (213) 688-4519 Wireless Equipment Scott P. Sutherland, CFA ………….…….. (213) 688-4522 Suhail Chandy ……………...……….…….. (213) 688-4380 LIFE SCIENCES Biotechnology / Biopharmaceuticals Gregory R. Wade, Ph.D.………...……….. (415) 274-6863 Jeremiah Shepard, Ph.D.………...……….. (415) 274-6862 Kimberly Lee, D.O….……………..………. (415) 274-6842

Y. Katherine Xu, Ph.D…………………….. (212) 938-9955

Cardiovascular, Devices & Regenerative Duane Nash, MD JD MBA…...…..………. (415) 263-6650 Akiva Felt ……………………...…..………. (415) 263-6648

Emerging Pharmaceuticals Liana Moussatos, Ph.D.….........…………. (415) 263-6626 Richard Lau ..…………….………..………. (415) 274-6851

Specialty Pharmaceuticals Patricia Bank…………………..……………..(415) 263-6646 Medical Technology Phillip Nalbone………………….……………(415) 274-6884 Jeffrey Chu……..……………….……………(415) 274-6885

Solar Technology Christine Hersey....……..…...………………(213) 688-4311

EQUITY SALES EQUITY TRADINGLos Angeles (213) 688-4470 / (800) 444-8076 Los Angeles (213) 688-4470 / (800) 421-0178San Francisco (415) 274-6800 San Francisco (415) 274-6811New York (212) 938-9931 New York (212) 344-2382Boston (617) 832-3700 Boston (617) 832-3700

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS1000 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90017-2465

Tel: (213) 688-8000 www.wedbush.com

L OS A NGELES N EW Y ORK S AN F RANCISCO B OSTON S …

Documents

Transcript of L OS A NGELES N EW Y ORK S AN F RANCISCO B OSTON S …