...
首页> 外文期刊>Stroke: A Journal of Cerebral Circulation >Mechanical thromboembolectomy for acute ischemic stroke: comparison of the catch thrombectomy device and the Merci Retriever in vivo.
【24h】

Mechanical thromboembolectomy for acute ischemic stroke: comparison of the catch thrombectomy device and the Merci Retriever in vivo.

机译:机械性血栓栓塞切除术用于急性缺血性卒中:体内血栓切除术装置与Merci猎犬的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to compare efficacy and potential complications of 2 commercially available devices for mechanical thromboembolectomy. METHODS: Devices were tested in an established animal model allowing the use of routine angiography catheters and thrombectomy devices. Radio-opaque thrombi were used for visualization of thrombus-device interaction during angiography. The Merci Retrieval System and the Catch Thromboembolectomy System were assessed each in 10 vessel occlusions. For every occluded vessel up to 5 retrieval attempts were performed. RESULTS: Sufficient recanalization was achieved with the Merci Retriever in 90% of occlusions, and with the Catch device recanalization was achieved in 70% of occlusions. Recanalization at the first attempt occurred significantly more often with the Merci Retriever compared to the Catch device (OR, 21; 95% CI, 1.78-248.11). Consequently, significantly more attempts (P=0.02) had to be performed with the Catch device; therefore, time to recanalization was longer. Thrombus fragmentations during retrieval were caused more often by the Catch device compared to the Merci Retriever (OR, 15.6; 95% CI, 1.73-140.84), resulting in a higher distal embolization rate. During retrieval both devices lost thrombotic material at the tip of the guide catheter, which was then aspirated in most cases. CONCLUSIONS: Both distal devices are effective for thromboembolectomy. To avoid loss of thrombotic material and distal embolization, the use of large luminal balloon guide catheters and aspiration during retrieval seems to be mandatory. The design of the Merci Retriever appears to be more efficient during thrombus mobilization and retrieval with less fragmentation compared to the Catch Thromboembolectomy System.
机译:背景与目的:本研究的目的是比较2种市售的机械血栓栓塞切除术设备的功效和潜在并发症。方法:在建立的动物模型中测试了设备,允许使用常规血管造影导管和血栓切除设备。不透射线的血栓用于血管造影期间血栓设备相互作用的可视化。在10个血管阻塞中分别评估了Merci检索系统和Catch血栓栓塞切除系统。对于每个被阻塞的血管,最多进行5次检索尝试。结果:Merci猎犬在90%的咬合中实现了充分的再通,而Catch装置在70%的咬合中实现了再通。与Catch装置相比,Merci猎犬在首次尝试时进行再通的频率明显更高(OR,21; 95%CI,1.78-248.11)。因此,必须使用Catch设备进行更多尝试(P = 0.02);因此,再通的时间更长。与Merci Retriever相比,Catch装置更容易引起取回过程中的血栓碎裂(OR,15.6; 95%CI,1.73-140.84),从而导致远端栓塞率更高。在取回过程中,两个装置在引导导管的尖端丢失了血栓物质,然后在大多数情况下将其吸出。结论:两个远端装置均对血栓栓塞切除术有效。为了避免血栓形成材料的丢失和远端栓塞,在取回过程中使用大型管腔球囊导管和抽吸似乎是强制性的。与Catch血栓栓塞切除术系统相比,Merci猎犬的设计在血栓动员和恢复过程中似乎更有效,并且碎片更少。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号