This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 39/4/1213    most recent STROKEAHA.107.495614v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Brekenfeld, C. Articles by Gralla, J. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Brekenfeld, C. Articles by Gralla, J. Related Collections Other Stroke Treatment - Surgical Animal models of human disease Acute Cerebral Infarction Embolic stroke Emergency treatment of Stroke

(Stroke. 2008;39:1213.)
© 2008 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Contributions

Mechanical Thromboembolectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke

Comparison of the Catch Thromboectomy Device and the Merci Retriever In Vivo

Caspar Brekenfeld, MD; Gerhard Schroth, MD; Marwan El-Koussy, MD; Krassen Nedeltchev, MD; Michael Reinert, MD; Johannes Slotboom, PhD Jan Gralla, MD

From Department of Interventional and Diagnostic Neuroradiology (C.B., G.S., M.E.-K., J.S., J.G.), Department of Neurology (K.N.), Department of Neurosurgery (M.R.), University of Bern, Switzerland.

Correspondence to Caspar Brekenfeld, MD, Department of Interventional and Diagnostic Neuroradiology, University of Bern, Inselspital, Freiburgstrasse 4, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland. E-mail Caspar.brekenfeld{at}insel.ch

Background and Purpose— The purpose of the study was to compare efficacy and potential complications of 2 commercially available devices for mechanical thromboembolectomy.

Methods— Devices were tested in an established animal model allowing the use of routine angiography catheters and thrombectomy devices. Radio-opaque thrombi were used for visualization of thrombus–device interaction during angiography. The Merci Retrieval System and the Catch Thromboembolectomy System were assessed each in 10 vessel occlusions. For every occluded vessel up to 5 retrieval attempts were performed.

Results— Sufficient recanalization was achieved with the Merci Retriever in 90% of occlusions, and with the Catch device recanalization was achieved in 70% of occlusions. Recanalization at the first attempt occurred significantly more often with the Merci Retriever compared to the Catch device (OR, 21; 95% CI, 1.78–248.11). Consequently, significantly more attempts (P=0.02) had to be performed with the Catch device; therefore, time to recanalization was longer. Thrombus fragmentations during retrieval were caused more often by the Catch device compared to the Merci Retriever (OR, 15.6; 95% CI, 1.73–140.84), resulting in a higher distal embolization rate. During retrieval both devices lost thrombotic material at the tip of the guide catheter, which was then aspirated in most cases.

Conclusions— Both distal devices are effective for thromboembolectomy. To avoid loss of thrombotic material and distal embolization, the use of large luminal balloon guide catheters and aspiration during retrieval seems to be mandatory. The design of the Merci Retriever appears to be more efficient during thrombus mobilization and retrieval with less fragmentation compared to the Catch Thromboembolectomy System.

Key Words: interventional treatment • mechanical embolectomy • stroke