Article Text

Download PDFPDF

O04/35  Comparison of arterial wall integration of different flow diverters in rabbits : the cicaflow study
  1. Géraud Forestier1,2,
  2. Jonathan Cortese2,3,
  3. Sylvia M Bardet2,
  4. Maxime Baudouin1,
  5. Kévin Janot2,4,
  6. Voahirana Ratsimbazafy5,6,
  7. Marie Laure Perrin2,
  8. Jérémy Mounier2,
  9. Claude Couquet2,
  10. Catherine Yardin2,7,
  11. Yan Larragneguy2,
  12. Flavie Souhaut2,
  13. Romain Chauvet2,
  14. Alexis Belgacem2,
  15. Sonia Brischoux8,
  16. Julien Magne9,
  17. Charbel Mounayer1,2,
  18. Faraj Terro2,
  19. Aymeric Rouchaud1,2
  1. 1CHU Limoges, Neuroradiology, Limoges, France
  2. 2University of Limoges, XLIM UMR CNRS 7252, France, Limoges, France
  3. 3NEURI Brain Vascular Center, Interventional Neuroradiology, Bicêtre University-Hospital, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, Kremlin-Bicetre, France
  4. 4Regional University Hospital Center Tours, Radiology, Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Tours, France
  5. 5Service de Pharmacie, CHU de Limoges, Limoges, France, Limoges, France
  6. 6Université de Limoges, IFR 145 GEIST, Institut d’Epidémiologie Neurologique et de Neurologie Tropicale, INSERM, UMR 1094, Limoges, France
  7. 7Cytology Department, Dupuytren Limoges University Hospital, France, Limoges, France
  8. 8Service de pharmacie centrale, CHU Dupuytren, Limoges, France, Limoges, France
  9. 9INSERM UMR 1904 Associate Researcher, Department of Cardiology, Assistant manager CEBIMER, Limoges, France


Introduction New coated flow-diverters (FDs) claim for antithrombotic properties and increased arterial wall integration.

Aim of Study This study aims to compare in vivo endothelial coverage of coated and uncoated FD in the setting of different antiplatelet regiments.

Methods In rabbit aortas, 3 different FDs (Silk Vista – SV; Pipeline with Shield technology – PED shield; Surpass Evolve – SE) were implanted in each animal with 3 different antiplatelet regimens: no antiplatelet therapy, aspirin alone, or aspirin and ticagrelor. Four weeks after FD implantations, angiography, flat-panel CT and Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) were performed before harvest of the aorta. Extensive histopathology analyzes were performed including Environmental Scanning Electron Microscopy (ESEM), Multiphoton Microscopy (MPM) and histological staining with qualitative and/or quantitative assessment of device coverage.

Results All 23 included FDs remained patent without hyperplasia. Qualitative stent coverage assessment revealed that there were no statically significant differences between all FD groups (p=0.19, p=0.45, p=0.40, and p=0.84 for OCT, ESEM, MPM and histology, respectively). Quantitative neointimal measurement histopathologic sections also showed similar results between all 3 FD groups (p=0.70); but was significantly different between the 3 groups of antiplatelet regimens (p=0.07) with higher rate in the no antiplatelet group (p=0.05 versus aspirin alone and p=0.03 versus aspirin and ticagrelor).

Conclusion Our study provides evidence that FD integration into the arterial wall is similar between coated (PED shield) and uncoated devices (SV, SE) despite the use of coated surfaces, whichever the antiplatelet regiment. There is a need to promote FD integration with specific surface coverage.

Disclosure of Interest Nothing to disclose.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.