Quan Vu-Hung, Huynh Rany, Seifert Philip A, Kuchela Arun, Chen Wai-Hong, Sütsch Gabor, Eisenhauer Andrew C, Rogers Campbell
Cardiovascular Division (Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA.
Am J Cardiol. 2005 Jun 15;95(12):1415-9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2005.02.006.
Different embolic protection devices have been introduced for endovascular interventions: filters or balloon occlusion and aspiration systems. Despite widening use in a variety of vascular beds and clinical syndromes, little is known about the particulate burden liberated from different vascular beds and caught by different protection devices. We performed histologic and morphometric analyses of particulate debris captured during stenting of degenerated saphenous vein bypass grafts and native coronary arteries during acute myocardial infarction or during elective intervention and carotid arteries to assess the relative performance of different protection devices. We analyzed 232 interventions (90 saphenous vein bypass grafts, 77 native coronary arteries, and 65 carotid arteries) with 4 different devices (65 FilterWires, 99 Interceptors, 41 GuardWires, and 27 Proxis catheters) using the RapidVue particle analyzer. No difference in embolic volume retrieved was demonstrated between devices in saphenous vein bypass grafts and carotid interventions. A smaller volume of particulate debris was retrieved by the GuardWire compared with the FilterWire and the Proxis catheter in native coronary artery interventions. The Interceptor and the GuardWire captured more smaller particles than did the FilterWire or Proxis catheter. During saphenous vein bypass graft or carotid intervention, different embolic protection strategies were performed similarly. In native coronary artery stenting, however, proximal embolic protection retrieved larger amounts of debris than did distal filters or occlusion devices. These data may allow greater tailoring of embolic protection device development and application in specific anatomic locales.
滤网或球囊阻断及抽吸系统。尽管其在各种血管床和临床综合征中的应用不断扩大,但对于从不同血管床释放并被不同保护装置捕获的微粒负荷情况却知之甚少。我们对在急性心肌梗死期间或择期介入时对退化的大隐静脉旁路移植血管和天然冠状动脉以及颈动脉进行支架置入过程中捕获的微粒碎片进行了组织学和形态学分析,以评估不同保护装置的相对性能。我们使用RapidVue颗粒分析仪,对232例介入治疗(90例大隐静脉旁路移植血管、77例天然冠状动脉和65例颈动脉)使用4种不同装置(65根FilterWire、99根Interceptor、41根GuardWire和27根Proxis导管)进行了分析。在大隐静脉旁路移植血管和颈动脉介入治疗中,各装置回收的栓子体积无差异。在天然冠状动脉介入治疗中,与FilterWire和Proxis导管相比,GuardWire回收的微粒碎片体积较小。Interceptor和GuardWire捕获的较小颗粒比FilterWire或Proxis导管更多。在大隐静脉旁路移植血管或颈动脉介入治疗期间,不同的栓子保护策略的实施效果相似。然而,在天然冠状动脉支架置入术中,近端栓子保护回收的碎片量比远端滤网或阻断装置更多。这些数据可能有助于更有针对性地开发栓子保护装置并将其应用于特定的解剖部位。