title: Comparison of the Effectiveness of Three Methods of Recanalization in a Model of the Middle Cerebral Artery: Thrombus Aspiration via a 4F Catheter, Thrombus Aspiration via the GP Thromboaspiration Device, and Mechanical Thrombectomy Using the Solitaire Thrombectomy Device.
abstract: Introduction. This paper compares different approaches to recanalization in a model of the middle cerebral artery (MCA). Methods. An occlusive thrombus (lamb's blood) was introduced into the MCA of a model of the cerebral circulation perfused with Hartmann's solution (80 pulsations/min, mean pressure 90 mm Hg). Three methods of clot retrieval were tested: thrombus aspiration via a 4F catheter (n = 26), thrombus aspiration via the GP thrombus aspiration device (GPTAD) (n = 30), and mechanical thrombectomy via the Solitaire Device (n = 30). Results. Recanalization rate was similar for all 3 approaches (62%, 77%, and 85%). Time to recanalization was faster with aspiration devices (41 SD 42 s for 4F and 61 SD 21 s for GPTAD) than with the Solitaire (197 SD 64 s P < .05 Kruksal-Wallis). Clot fragmentation was the same in the Solitaire (23%) and the GPTAD (23%), but higher with the 4F (53%, P < .05). Conclusion. In this model, thrombus aspiration was faster than mechanical thrombectomy, and similarly effective at recanalization. These results should be confirmed in vivo.
authors: School of Medicine, Keele University, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK.
authors: Christopher
authors: C
authors: Tennuci
authors: Gillian
authors: G
authors: Pearce
authors: Julian
authors: J
authors: Wong
authors: Sanjeev
authors: S
authors: Nayak
authors: Tom
authors: T
authors: Jones
authors: Frank
authors: F
authors: Lally
authors: Christine
authors: C
authors: Roffe
references: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2007 Jul-Aug;16(4):167-72
references: 17689413
references: Neuroradiology. 2008 Jan;50(1):43-52
references: 17932666
references: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2009 Jul-Aug;18(4):288-93
references: 19560683
references: J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004 Jan;15(1 Pt 2):S103-10
references: 15101519
references: Stroke. 2008 Apr;39(4):1213-9
references: 18309173
references: Neurosurg Focus. 2009;26(3):E2
references: 19249958
references: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002 Feb;23(2):282-4
references: 11847055
references: Br J Radiol. 2010 Dec;83(996):1017-22
references: 21088087
references: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006 Jun-Jul;27(6):1357-61
references: 16775297
references: Neuroradiology. 2004 Aug;46(8):686-91
references: 15205861
references: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2010 Mar;19(2):121-9
references: 20189088
references: N Engl J Med. 2008 Sep 25;359(13):1317-29
references: 18815396
references: Stroke. 2009 Mar;40(3 Suppl):S103-6
references: 19064804
references: J Neurointerv Surg. 2010 Jun;2(2):110-4
references: 21990589
references: Stroke. 2010 Aug;41(8):1836-40
references: 20538693
references: J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005 Apr;16(4):539-42
references: 15802455
references: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002 May;23(5):783-6
references: 12006277
references: Stroke. 2006 Dec;37(12):3019-24
references: 17053185
references: Stroke. 2007 Mar;38(3):967-73
references: 17272772
references: Acta Neurol Scand Suppl. 2007;187:22-9
references: 17419824