Longitudinal healing flow diverting stents with phosphorylcholine surface modification.

J Neurointerv Surg

New England Center for Stroke Research, Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.

Published: May 2024

AI Article Synopsis

  • Flow diversion is a common treatment for cerebral aneurysms but has notable downsides, including the need for dual antiplatelet therapy and slow healing of the aneurysm.
  • New surface modifications like the phosphorylcholine polymer aim to reduce blood clot risk, but concerns exist about potential delays in healing.
  • A study using different flow diverters in rabbits found no significant differences in tissue growth or healing between devices, indicating that the Shield modification does not negatively affect the integration process.

Article Abstract

Background: Flow diversion has become a standard treatment for cerebral aneurysms. However, major drawbacks include the need for dual antiplatelet therapy after implant and delayed complete occlusion of the aneurysm, which occurs when new tissue growth excludes the aneurysm from the parent artery. Biomimetic surface modifications such as the phosphorylcholine polymer (Shield surface modification) represent major advances in reducing thrombogenicity of these devices. However, in vitro studies have raised concerns that this modification may also delay endothelialization of flow diverters.

Methods: Bare metal Pipeline, Pipeline Shield, and Vantage with Shield devices were implanted in the common carotid arteries (CCAs) of 10 rabbits (two in the left CCA, one in the right CCA). Following implant and at 5, 10, 15, and 30 days, the devices were imaged with high-frequency optical coherence tomography and conventional angiography to evaluate tissue growth. At 30 days the devices were explanted and their endothelial growth was assessed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) at five locations along their length using a semi-quantitative score.

Results: The average tissue growth thickness (ATGT) was not different between the three devices. Neointima was apparent at 5 days and all devices demonstrated similar ATGT at each time point. On SEM, no difference was found in the endothelium scores between the device types.

Conclusion: In vivo, neither the Shield surface modification nor the device design (Vantage) altered the longitudinal healing of the flow diverter.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2023-020500DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

surface modification
12
tissue growth
12
longitudinal healing
8
healing flow
8
shield surface
8
days devices
8
devices
6
flow
4
flow diverting
4
diverting stents
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!