Thrombogenicity of hydrophilic and nonhydrophilic microcatheters and guiding catheters

David F. Kallmes, J. Kevin McGraw, Avery J. Evans, John M. Mathis, Robert W. Hergenrother, Mary E. Jensen, Harry J. Cloft, Mariabeatriz Lopes, Jacques E. Dion

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

32 Scopus citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess in a swine model the in vivo thrombogenicity of various microcatheters and guiding catheters as a function of catheter material, catheter coating, and duration of implantation. METHODS: Microcatheters (Tracker 18 and Fastracker 18, Target Therapeutics, Fremont, Calif; Magic 1.8, Bait, Montmorency, France; and Transit, Cordis Endovascular Systems, Miami Lakes, Fla) were placed through 6F guiding catheters (Fasguide, Target Therapeutics, and Envoy, Cordis Endovascular Systems) into the common carotid arteries of swine for 30 minutes (short term), 90 minutes (medium term), and 35 days (long term). Guiding catheters were implanted for 5 hours. At the end of the implantation periods the catheters were retracted and fixed for scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The surface of the Fastracker microcatheter was devoid of debris after both short- and medium- term implantation. The Tracker microcatheter had minimal accumulation of cellular elements whereas the Transit microcatheter showed moderate accumulation of nondeformed red blood cells. Neither the Tracker nor the Transit microcatheter showed evidence of increasing debris accumulation after medium-term implantation as compared with short-term implantation. The Magic microcatheter was coated with gross thrombus after both short- and medium- term implantation. The Fasguide guiding catheter was nearly devoid of debris, while the Envoy guiding catheter had moderate thrombus formation. Long-term implantation of the Fastracker microcatheter was well tolerated whereas that of the Transit catheter resulted in vessel occlusion. CONCLUSIONS: Hydrophilic microcatheters and guiding catheters are less thrombogenic than their nonhydrophilic counterparts, but not all hydrophilic coatings are equally hypothrombogenic. Degree of thrombogenicity depends on catheter material rather than surface morphology. Medium-term implantation did not yield increasing thrombus formation relative to short-term implantation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1243-1251
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology
Volume18
Issue number7
StatePublished - Aug 1 1997

Keywords

  • Animal studies
  • Catheters and catheterization
  • Instruments

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Clinical Neurology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Thrombogenicity of hydrophilic and nonhydrophilic microcatheters and guiding catheters'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Kallmes, D. F., McGraw, J. K., Evans, A. J., Mathis, J. M., Hergenrother, R. W., Jensen, M. E., Cloft, H. J., Lopes, M., & Dion, J. E. (1997). Thrombogenicity of hydrophilic and nonhydrophilic microcatheters and guiding catheters. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 18(7), 1243-1251.