In Vitro Performance Assessment of Distal Protection Devices for Carotid Artery Stenting: Effect of Physiological Anatomy on Vascular Resistance

Abstract

Purpose:

To assess in vitro the performance of 5 distal protection devices (DPDs) by evaluating the capture efficiency, pressure gradient, volume flow rate, and vascular resistance in the internal carotid artery (ICA).

Methods:

The time-averaged mean peak velocity in the common carotid artery and a blood-mimicking solution were used to simulate physiological conditions in a silicone carotid phantom representing average human carotid artery geometry with a 70% symmetrical ICA stenosis. Five milligrams of dyed 200-μm nominal diameter polymer microspheres (larger than the pore size of the devices, except Spider RX, which was tested with 300-μm-diameter particles) were injected into the ICA. The percentages of particles missed after injection and lost during device retrieval were measured for the 5 devices (Spider RX, FilterWire EZ, RX Accunet, Angioguard XP, and Emboshield). The normalized pressure gradient, fraction of the volume flow rate, and vascular resistance in the ICA were calculated.

Results:

Spider RX captured the most particles (missing 0.06%, p<0.05) and yielded the smallest normalized pressure gradient increase (4.2%), the largest volume flow rate fraction (0.40), and the smallest vascular resistance in the ICA (272 mmHg/L·min⁻¹, a 5.4% increase with respect to initial conditions). Angioguard XP captured the fewest particles (missing 36.3%, p<0.05 except Emboshield) and resulted in the largest normalized pressure gradient increase (37%) in the ICA. RX Accunet produced the smallest volume flow rate fraction in the ICA (0.30) and the largest vascular resistance in the ICA (470 mmHg/L·min⁻¹, an 82.2% increase). Emboshield migrated ∼6 cm distal to the original position after particle injection. FilterWire EZ lost the fewest particles during retrieval (0.45%, p<0.05 except Accunet RX and Spider RX) and had the best overall performance with 200-μm emboli (p<0.05 except Accunet RX).

Conclusion:

None of the devices tested completely prevented embolization. Overall, Spider RX had the best performance and is conjectured to have the best wall apposition of the devices tested. Vascular resistance should be considered a key filter design parameter for performance testing since it represents a quantitative estimation of the “slow-flow phenomenon.” Our findings should be extrapolated cautiously to help interventionists choose the best device.

Keywords

carotid artery stent cerebral protection embolic protection filter stenosis pressure gradient distal protection device

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Loftus

Schumacher

Meyers

. Interventional therapy for carotid artery disease using angioplasty and stenting with embolic protection. Minerva Cardioangiol. 2006; 54: 679–685.

Eskandari

. Design and development of mechanical embolic protection devices. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2006; 3: 387–393.

Kasirajan

Schneider

Kent

. Filter devices for cerebral protection during carotid angioplasty and stenting. J Endovasc Ther. 2003; 10: 1039–1045.

Wholey

Al-Mubarak

Wholey

. Updated review of the global carotid artery stent registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003; 60: 259–266.

Crawley

Clifton

Buchenham

. Comparison of hemodynamic cerebral ischemia and microembolic signals detected during carotid endarterectomy and carotid angioplasty. Stroke. 1997; 28: 2460–2464.

Hendriks

Zindler

van der Lugt

. Embolic protection filters for carotid stenting: Differences in flow obstruction depending on filter construction. J Endovasc Ther. 2006; 13: 47–50.

Casserly

Abou-Chebl

Fathi

. Slow-flow phenomenon during carotid artery intervention with embolic protection devices: Predictors and clinical outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 46: 1466–1472.

Finol

Scotti

Verdinelli

. Performance assessment of embolic protection filters for carotid artery stenting. Model Med Biol VI. 2005; 2: 133–142.

Gaspard

Siewiorek

Finol

. Performance assessment of a cerebral protection device by in vitro testing and computational fluid dynamics [Abstract BIO2006–158114]. Proceedings of the 2006 Summer Bioengineering Conference, Amelia Island, FL, USA; June 21–25, 2006.

10.

Smith

Rutt

Fox

. Geometric characterization of stenosed human carotid arteries. Acad Radiol. 1996; 3: 898–911.

11.

Holdsworth

Norley

Frayne

. Characterization of common carotid artery blood-flow waveforms in normal human subjects. Physiol Meas. 1999; 20: 219–240.

12.

Nichols

O'Rourke

. McDonald's Blood Flow in Arteries: Theoretical, Experimental and Clinical Principles, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger; 1990.

13.

Sprouse

Peeters

Bosiers

. The capture of visible debris by distal cerebral protection filters during carotid artery stenting: Is it predictable? J Vasc Surg. 2005; 41: 950–955.

14.

Hayashi

Kitagawa

Morikawa

. Observing the carotid debris aspirated during carotid stenting: Technical note. Neurol Res. 2005; 27: 22–26.

15.

Quan

Huynh

Seifert

. Morphometric analysis of particulate debris extracted by four different embolic protection devices from coronary arteries, aortocoronary saphenous vein conduits, and carotid arteries. Am J Cardiol. 2005; 95: 1415–1419.

16.

Chen

Iguchi

Garami

. Analysis of emboli during carotid stenting with distal protection device. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2006; 21: 223–228.

17.

de Weert

Ouhlous

Zondervan

. In vitro characterization of atherosclerotic carotid plaque with multidetector computed tomography and histopathological correlation. Eur Radiol. 2005; 15: 1906–1914.

18.

Golledge

Greenhalgh

Davies

. The symptomatic carotid plaque. Stroke. 2000; 31: 774–781.

19.

Ohki

Roubin

Veith

. Efficacy of a filter device in the prevention of embolic events during carotid angioplasty and stenting: An ex vivo analysis. J Vasc Surg. 1999; 30: 1034–1044.

20.

Müller-Hülsbeck

Grimm

Liess

. Comparison and modification of two cerebral protection devices used for carotid angioplasty: In vitro experiment. Radiology. 2002; 225: 289–294.

21.

Müller-Hülsbeck

Jahnke

Liess

. Comparison of various cerebral protection devices used for carotid artery stent placement: An in vitro experiment. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003; 14: 613–620.

22.

Müller-Hülsbeck

Hüsler

Schaffner

. An in vitro analysis of a carotid artery stent with a protective porous membrane. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004; 15: 1295–1305.

23.

Müller-Hülsbeck

Jahnke

Liess

. In vitro comparison of four cerebral protection filters for preventing human plaque embolization during carotid interventions. J Endovasc Ther. 2002; 9: 793–802.

24.

Order

Glass

Liess

. Comparison of 4 cerebral protection filters for carotid angioplasty: An in vitro experiment focusing on carotid anatomy. J Endovasc Ther. 2004; 11: 211–218.

25.

Yadav

Wholey

Kuntz

. Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 1493–1501.

26.

Gray

Hopkins

Yadav

. Protected carotid stenting in high-surgical-risk patients: The ARCHeR results. J Vasc Surg. 2006; 44: 258–268.

27.

EVA-3S Investigators. Carotid angioplasty and stenting with and without cerebral protection: Clinical alert from the endarterectomy versus angioplasty in patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis (EVA-3S) trial. Stroke. 2004; 35: e18–e21.