Guy Haiman1, Tamim Nazif2, Jeffrey W Moses2, Amit Ashkenazi1, Pauliina Margolis1, Alexandra J Lansky3,4. 1. Keystone Heart Ltd., Caesarea, Israel. 2. Department of Cardiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 4. Department of Cardiology, Yale Cardiovascular Research Group, New Haven, CT, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To assess the efficacy of the TriGUARD 3™, a novel cerebral embolic protection (CEP) device in reducing cerebral embolization by deflecting embolic debris away from the cerebral circulation using a quantitative in vitro model. METHODS AND RESULTS: This in vitro study assessed the ability of a cerebral embolic protection device to deflect embolic debris, by measuring the percent of particles and air bubbles, 200 µm and 300 µm in size, from entering the cerebral circulation compared to unprotected controls. A 3D printed silicone model of the ascending aorta, the aortic arch with its three major cerebral arteries and the descending aorta was connected to a custom-made simulator that mimics physiological pulsatile flow patterns of the left ventricle. Comparative analyses were used to assess the efficacy of the cerebral embolic protection device to deflect particles and air bubbles away from the major cerebral arteries. The percent of particles and air bubbles entering the major cerebral arteries was significantly lower with cerebral embolic protection compared to unprotected controls (p<0.0001). Cerebral protection resulted in 97.4-100% reduction in air bubble counts, and 97.4-97.8% reduction in particle counts compared to unprotected controls. CONCLUSION: This in vitro study used simulated physiologic flow conditions in an aortic arch model to demonstrate >97% efficacy of the TriGUARD 3 CEP device, in reducing cerebral embolization of particulate and air bubbles of 200 µm to 300 µm in size.
AIM: To assess the efficacy of the TriGUARD 3™, a novel cerebral embolic protection (CEP) device in reducing cerebral embolization by deflecting embolic debris away from the cerebral circulation using a quantitative in vitro model. METHODS AND RESULTS: This in vitro study assessed the ability of a cerebral embolic protection device to deflect embolic debris, by measuring the percent of particles and air bubbles, 200 µm and 300 µm in size, from entering the cerebral circulation compared to unprotected controls. A 3D printed silicone model of the ascending aorta, the aortic arch with its three major cerebral arteries and the descending aorta was connected to a custom-made simulator that mimics physiological pulsatile flow patterns of the left ventricle. Comparative analyses were used to assess the efficacy of the cerebral embolic protection device to deflect particles and air bubbles away from the major cerebral arteries. The percent of particles and air bubbles entering the major cerebral arteries was significantly lower with cerebral embolic protection compared to unprotected controls (p<0.0001). Cerebral protection resulted in 97.4-100% reduction in air bubble counts, and 97.4-97.8% reduction in particle counts compared to unprotected controls. CONCLUSION: This in vitro study used simulated physiologic flow conditions in an aortic arch model to demonstrate >97% efficacy of the TriGUARD 3 CEP device, in reducing cerebral embolization of particulate and air bubbles of 200 µm to 300 µm in size.
Authors: Christoph K Naber; Alexander Ghanem; Alexander A Abizaid; Alexander Wolf; Jan-Malte Sinning; Nikos Werner; Georg Nickenig; Thomas Schmitz; Eberhard Grube Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2012-05-15 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Nicolas M Van Mieghem; Lennart van Gils; Habib Ahmad; Floortje van Kesteren; Hendrik W van der Werf; Guus Brueren; Michiel Storm; Mattie Lenzen; Joost Daemen; Ad F M van den Heuvel; Pim Tonino; Jan Baan; Peter J Koudstaal; Marguerite E I Schipper; Aad van der Lugt; Peter P T de Jaegere Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2016-07-20 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Josep Rodés-Cabau; Eric Dumont; Robert H Boone; Eric Larose; Rodrigo Bagur; Ronen Gurvitch; Fernand Bédard; Daniel Doyle; Robert De Larochellière; Cleonie Jayasuria; Jacques Villeneuve; Alier Marrero; Mélanie Côté; Philippe Pibarot; John G Webb Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Rutger-Jan Nuis; Nicolo Piazza; Nicolas M Van Mieghem; Amber M Otten; Apostolos Tzikas; Carl J Schultz; Robert van der Boon; Robert-Jan van Geuns; Ron T van Domburg; Peter J Koudstaal; Arie Pieter Kappetein; Patrick W Serruys; Peter P de Jaegere Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Stephan Haussig; Norman Mangner; Michael G Dwyer; Lukas Lehmkuhl; Christian Lücke; Felix Woitek; David M Holzhey; Friedrich W Mohr; Matthias Gutberlet; Robert Zivadinov; Gerhard Schuler; Axel Linke Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Shmuel Fuchs; Eugenio Stabile; Timothy D Kinnaird; Gary S Mintz; Luis Gruberg; Daniel A Canos; Ellen E Pinnow; Ran Kornowski; William O Suddath; Lowell F Satler; Augusto D Pichard; Kenneth M Kent; Neil J Weissman Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-07-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Heyder Omran; Harald Schmidt; Matthias Hackenbroch; Stefan Illien; Peter Bernhardt; Giso von der Recke; Rolf Fimmers; Sebastian Flacke; Günter Layer; Christoph Pohl; Berndt Lüderitz; Hans Schild; Torsten Sommer Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-04-12 Impact factor: 79.321