AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightAnimal models are needed toexamine their aspiration capacity in a real elastic vascular conduit and in the presence of wall-adherent thrombi.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Özet
PURPOSEWe aimed to evaluate and compare thrombus aspiration efficiency between side-hole and endhole thrombus-aspirating catheters.METHODSUsing an in vitro model of acute thrombus occlusion, we performed thrombus aspiration withtwo catheter designs. Two end-hole and two side-hole catheters, 8 F and 10 F in diameter, wereexamined. Thrombus aspiration was performed with each catheter 30 times, and the amount ofthrombotic material aspirated in each attempt was determined. The mean weight of the thrombotic material and the mean weight of the non-fluid thrombotic material extracted in all 30 attempts by each catheter were also determined.RESULTSThe 10 F side-hole catheter aspirated more thrombotic material than did the 10 F end-hole catheter (44.76 g vs. 28.35 g). The 8 F side-hole catheter had higher thrombus aspiration capacitythan did the 8 F end-hole catheter in terms of the mean weight of the aspirated thrombus ateach aspiration attempt (1.41 g vs. 0.58 g; P < 0.001) and the mean volume of the aspiratedthrombotic material at each aspiration attempt (1.79 mL vs. 1.01 mL; P < 0.001). The mean weightof the non-fluid thrombotic material aspirated with the side-hole catheters was higher than thataspirated by the end-hole catheters with the same diameter size (31.06 g vs. 22.41 g for the 10 Fcatheters; P < 0.001; and 4.54 g vs. 2.99 g for the 8 F catheters; P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSide-hole catheters are more effective in aspirating acute thrombi. The added benefit of theside-hole design is more remarkable in smaller-sized catheters. Animal models are needed toexamine their aspiration capacity in a real elastic vascular conduit and in the presence of wall-adherent thrombi.