In Vitro Comparison of Several Thrombus Removal Tools.
aspiration catheters
aspiration thrombectomy
mechanical thrombectomy
stentriever
thrombus
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular development and disease
ISSN: 2308-3425
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Dev Dis
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101651414
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Feb 2023
06 Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
09
01
2023
revised:
27
01
2023
accepted:
02
02
2023
entrez:
24
2
2023
pubmed:
25
2
2023
medline:
25
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although the routine use of thrombus aspiration is not recommended, the thrombectomy technique still might be considered for a selected population of patients. Therefore, the assessment of the effectiveness of commercially available thrombectomy devices is still clinically relevant. Here, we present an in vitro comparison of several different types of catheters that can be used for thrombus aspiration or removal. Through the removal of 6 h and 24 h human blood clots in an in vitro model, four catheters were compared: the Launcher, Pronto V4, Vasco+ and the stent-retriever Catchview. The aspiration efficacy was expressed as a percentage of the initial thrombus weight. The effectiveness of the patient's aspiration was dependent on the time of thrombus formation and was significantly higher for a thrombus formed over 24 h (58.5 ± 26.5%) than for one formed over 6 h (48.0 ± 22.5%; Large-bore aspiration catheters were found to be more effective than narrow-bore catheters or stent-retrievers in an in vitro model of thrombus removal. The thrombus aspiration efficacy increases with longer thrombus formation times.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although the routine use of thrombus aspiration is not recommended, the thrombectomy technique still might be considered for a selected population of patients. Therefore, the assessment of the effectiveness of commercially available thrombectomy devices is still clinically relevant.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
Here, we present an in vitro comparison of several different types of catheters that can be used for thrombus aspiration or removal.
METHODS
METHODS
Through the removal of 6 h and 24 h human blood clots in an in vitro model, four catheters were compared: the Launcher, Pronto V4, Vasco+ and the stent-retriever Catchview. The aspiration efficacy was expressed as a percentage of the initial thrombus weight. The effectiveness of the patient's aspiration was dependent on the time of thrombus formation and was significantly higher for a thrombus formed over 24 h (58.5 ± 26.5%) than for one formed over 6 h (48.0 ± 22.5%;
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Large-bore aspiration catheters were found to be more effective than narrow-bore catheters or stent-retrievers in an in vitro model of thrombus removal. The thrombus aspiration efficacy increases with longer thrombus formation times.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36826565
pii: jcdd10020069
doi: 10.3390/jcdd10020069
pmc: PMC9961130
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Medical University of Silesia
ID : KNW-1-174/K/8/K, KNW-1-175/N/8/K, PCN-1-132/K/0/K, and PCN-1-211/K/1/K
Références
Thromb Res. 2010 Nov;126(5):431-5
pubmed: 20800267
Eur Heart J. 2018 Jan 7;39(2):119-177
pubmed: 28886621
J Invasive Cardiol. 2014 Jun;26(6):249-54
pubmed: 24907080
N Engl J Med. 2013 Oct 24;369(17):1587-97
pubmed: 23991656
N Engl J Med. 2015 Apr 9;372(15):1389-98
pubmed: 25853743
J Neurointerv Surg. 2021 Oct;13(10):946-950
pubmed: 33273045
Int Heart J. 2014;55(5):455-8
pubmed: 25070119
Eur Heart J Case Rep. 2019 Jan 09;3(1):yty161
pubmed: 31020237
J Invasive Cardiol. 2013 Nov;25(11):620-4
pubmed: 24184899
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2020 Sep;73(9):741-748
pubmed: 31810820
Eur Heart J. 2002 Jul;23(14):1112-7
pubmed: 12090749
J Invasive Cardiol. 2012 Nov;24(11):618-21
pubmed: 23117320
Circulation. 2017 Jan 10;135(2):143-152
pubmed: 27941066
Lab Med. 2017 Nov 8;48(4):295-313
pubmed: 29126301
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Apr;6(4):377-85
pubmed: 23523458
Int J Clin Pract. 2008 Apr;62(4):555-61
pubmed: 18067561
N Engl J Med. 2008 Aug 28;359(9):938-49
pubmed: 18753650
JAMA. 2009 Feb 4;301(5):487-8
pubmed: 19190313
Eur Heart J. 2013 Apr;34(14):1050-60
pubmed: 23396493
Lancet. 2003 Jan 4;361(9351):13-20
pubmed: 12517460
J Thorac Dis. 2016 Oct;8(10):E1150-E1162
pubmed: 27867580
Am Heart J. 2014 Mar;167(3):315-321.e1
pubmed: 24576514
J Invasive Cardiol. 2008 Oct;20(10):E304-5
pubmed: 18830012
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006 Feb;67(2):254-7
pubmed: 16331662
Eur Heart J. 2012 Jun;33(12):1480-90
pubmed: 22240493
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011 Jan 1;77(1):35-42
pubmed: 20506526
Eur Heart J. 2015 Aug 1;36(29):1892-900
pubmed: 25994742
EuroIntervention. 2011 Jan;6(6):729-34
pubmed: 21205596
EuroIntervention. 2007 Feb;2(4):487-92
pubmed: 19755289
Mediators Inflamm. 2017;2017:7018393
pubmed: 28286377
Circulation. 2008 Oct 28;118(18):1810-6
pubmed: 18852369
J Neurosurg. 2017 Apr;126(4):1123-1130
pubmed: 27128585
J Invasive Cardiol. 2012 Mar;24(3):141-3
pubmed: 22388312
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017 Jan;89(1):71-77
pubmed: 27158776