Yoon Jong-Tae, Kwon Boseong, Choi Joon Ho, Hwang Sun Moon, Kim Mihyeon, Hwang Sungbin, Song Yunsun, Lee Deok Hee
Department of Radiology, AMIST, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Neurointervention. 2024 Mar;19(1):31-38. doi: 10.5469/neuroint.2024.00031. Epub 2024 Feb 20.
To compare the embolization effects of a non-fibered pushable coil with a conventional fibered pushable coil in an in vitro bench-top experiment.
A simplified vascular phantom with 4 channels (1 for the non-fibered coil, 1 for the fibered coil, and 2 for continuous circuit flow) was used. A single coil of the longest length was inserted to evaluate the effect of single-coil embolization, and 3 consecutive coils were inserted to assess the effect of multiple-coil embolization. Post-embolization angiography was performed to obtain flow variables (time to peak [TTP], relative peak intensity [rPI], and angiographic flow reduction score [AFRS]) from time density curves. The packing densities of the two coil types were calculated, and the AFRS of each channel was determined by dividing the TTP by the rPI.
When inserting a single coil, the conventional fibered coil demonstrated better flow reduction, as indicated by a higher AFRS (25.6 vs. 17.4, P=0.034). However, the non-fibered coil exhibited a significantly higher packing density (12.9 vs. 2.4, P=0.001). Similar trends were observed with multiple coils.
The conventional fibered pushable coil showed better flow reduction efficiency, while the non-fibered pushable coil had a higher packing density, likely due to the flexibility of the coil loops. A better understanding of the distinct characteristics of different pushable coils can enhance the outcomes of various vascular embolization.
在体外台式实验中比较非纤维可推送线圈与传统纤维可推送线圈的栓塞效果。
使用具有4个通道（1个用于非纤维线圈，1个用于纤维线圈，2个用于连续回路血流）的简化血管模型。插入最长长度的单个线圈以评估单线圈栓塞的效果，并插入3个连续的线圈以评估多线圈栓塞的效果。栓塞后进行血管造影，从时间密度曲线获取血流变量（达峰时间[TTP]、相对峰值强度[rPI]和血管造影血流减少评分[AFRS]）。计算两种线圈类型的填充密度，每个通道的AFRS通过将TTP除以rPI来确定。
插入单个线圈时，传统纤维线圈显示出更好的血流减少效果，AFRS更高（25.6对17.4，P = 0.034）。然而，非纤维线圈的填充密度显著更高（12.9对2.4，P = 0.001）。多线圈时也观察到类似趋势。
传统纤维可推送线圈显示出更好的血流减少效率，而非纤维可推送线圈具有更高的填充密度，这可能归因于线圈环的柔韧性。更好地了解不同可推送线圈的独特特性可提高各种血管栓塞的效果。
