| Literature DB >> 28592484 |
Yoshikazu Matsuda1,2, Joonho Chung1,3, Demetrius K Lopes1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Flow diverters are used for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Surface modification may decrease the thrombogenicity of flow diverters but the details are unknown. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an intravascular imaging test with high resolution which identifies neointimal growth over stents. We compared the development of neointima in a flow diverter and stents with and without surface modification in a swine model.Entities:
Keywords: Device; Flow Diverter; Intervention; Stent; Vessel Wall
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28592484 PMCID: PMC5800337 DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012969
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neurointerv Surg ISSN: 1759-8478 Impact factor: 5.836
Figure 1Automatic contour detection algorithm for carotid artery quantification. The endoluminal surface indicated by a green circle was automatically detected. Stent struts were manually traced and positioned in the center of the stent strut. The lumen, stent, and neointimal (stent − lumen) area were measured. Maximum and minimum thickness on magnification was automatically measured (black and white arrows).
Results of OCT analysis in each stent
| PED Flex | PED Shield | Solitaire | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Implanted stents, n | 6 | 6 | 4 | |||||||||
| Thrombosed stents on day 7, n | 6 | 2 | 0 | |||||||||
| Position-based analysis | n=18 | n=18 | n=12 | |||||||||
| Lumen area, mm2* | 16.53±2.12 | 9.67±3.50 | 11.12±4.12 | 10.09±3.87 | 15.68±1.02 | 10.01±2.73 | 9.15±3.98 | 8.99±4.01 | 12.68±4.78 | 8.47±3.88 | 8.69±2.38 | 8.82±2.53 |
| Mean diameter, mm* | 4.57±0.31 | 3.42±0.65 | 3.69±0.72 | 3.52±0.69 | 4.47±0.15 | 3.52±0.52 | 3.33±0.68 | 3.31±0.76 | 3.94±0.78 | 3.21±0.71 | 3.30±0.43 | 3.07±0.93 |
| Stent area, mm2 | 15.95±1.99 | 13.51±3.55 | 13.38±4.1 | 12.13±4.54 | 12.12±2.80 | 12.12±2.80 | 11.42±4.86 | 11.71±5.58 | 8.86±3.74 | 8.87±3.74 | 9.23±1.88 | 9.30±1.79 |
| Mean diameter, mm | 4.50±0.29 | 3.89±0.92 | 4.08±0.63 | 3.86±0.74 | 4.38±0.18 | 3.90±0.43 | 3.74±0.76 | 3.76±0.91 | 3.79±0.65 | 3.29±0.67 | 3.41±0.35 | 3.42±0.34 |
| Neointima, mm2 | 3.84±3.02 | 2.26±1.37 | 2.04±1.73 | 2.11±3.36 | 2.26±2.23 | 2.72±2.06 | 0.40±0.39 | 0.54±0.93 | 0.48±1.22 | |||
| Neointimal ratio | 0.16±0.11 | 0.21±0.096 | 0.064±0.12 | |||||||||
| Neointimal thickness minimum, mm | 0.039±0.04 | 0.077±0.071 | 0.0042±0.012 | |||||||||
| Neointimal thickness maximum, mm | 0.39±0.31 | 0.45±0.33 | 0.26±0.16 | |||||||||
| Thickness ratio | 0.1±0.12 | 0.21±0.17 | 0.022±0.068 | |||||||||
| Detected neointima in every position, % | 27.8 | 68.8 | 100.0 | 47.1 | 80.0 | 100.0 | 8.3 | 83.3 | 100.0 | |||
| Distal position, % | 33.3 | 80.0 | 100.0 | 50.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 75.0 | 100.0 | |||
| Middle position, % | 16.7 | 50.0 | 100.0 | 33.3 | 80.0 | 100.0 | 25.0 | 75.0 | 100.0 | |||
| Proximal position, % | 33.3 | 80.0 | 100.0 | 60.0 | 60.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | |||
Data are reported as mean±SD.
*p<0.05 PED Flex vs Solitaire stent.
OCT, optical coherence tomography; PED, Pipeline Flex embolization device.
Figure 2(A) Percentage neointimal formation by location over time did not differ significantly between stents. (B) Percentage neointimal formation of the Pipeline Flex embolization device (PED Flex) divided into distal, middle, and proximal portions. (C) Percentage neointimal formation of the PED Shield device in each position. (D) Percentage neointimal formation of the Solitaire device in each position. Each stent shows no difference between the three positions. Bars are +SEs.
Figure 3(A) Neointimal ratio on day 21 in each stent. The Pipeline Flex embolization device (PED Flex) and PED Shield stent had a significantly higher neointimal ratio than the Solitaire stent (p<0.01 and p<0.05, respectively). There is no difference between the PED Shield and PED Flex. (B) Neointimal thickness ratio on day 21 in each stent. The PED Shield stent shows a significantly higher neointimal thickness ratio than the PED Flex and Solitaire stents (p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively). There is no difference between the PED Flex and Solitaire stents. Bars are +SEs.
Figure 4Representative optical coherence tomography (OCT) images and upper part of the histopathological findings divided longitudinally in each stent. (A) Asymmetrical neointima in the Pipeline Flex embolization device (PED Flex). Black arrow shows neointima covering mineralization. (B) Symmetrical neointima in the PED Shield stent (black arrows). (C) Asymmetrical neointima and less stent strut in Solitaire stent. (D) OCT image of asymmetrical and heterogeneous neointima in the PED Flex stent. White arrow shows neointima covering low back scattering lesion. (E) OCT image of symmetrical and homogenous neointima in the PED Shield stent (white arrows). (F) OCT image of asymmetrical and homogeneous neointima in the Solitaire stent.