Article Text
Abstract
Background Liquid embolic agents and polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) particles have been used for the embolization of the middle meningeal artery (MMA) for the treatment of chronic subdural hematomas. However, the vascular penetration and distribution of these embolic agents have not yet been compared. The current study compares distribution of a liquid embolic agent (Squid) to PVA particles (Contour) in an in vitro model of the MMA.
Methods MMA models were embolized with Contour PVA particles 45–150 µm, Contour PVA particles 150–250 µm, and Squid-18 liquid embolic agent (n=5 each). The models were scanned and every vascular segment with embolic agent was manually marked on the images. Embolized vascular length as a percentage of control, average embolized vascular diameter, and embolization time were compared between the groups.
Results The 150–250 µm Contour particles primarily accumulated close to the microcatheter tip, yielding proximal branch occlusions. The 45–150 µm Contour particles achieved a more distal distribution, but in a patchy segmental pattern. However, the models embolized with Squid-18 had a consistently distal, near-complete and homogenous distribution. Embolized vascular length was significantly higher (76±13% vs 5±3%, P=0.0007) and average embolized vessel diameter was significantly smaller (405±25 µm vs 775±225 µm, P=0.0006) with Squid than with Contour. Embolization time with Squid was also lower (2.8±2.4 min vs 6.4±2.7 min, P=0.09).
Conclusions Squid-18 liquid results in a considerably more consistent, distal and homogeneous pattern of embolysate distribution than Contour PVA particles in an anatomical model of the MMA tree.
- embolic
- liquid embolic material
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request with University approval.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request with University approval.
Footnotes
Contributors DF contributed to study conception and data acquisition as well as critically revised the manuscript. ND and SM contributed to data acquisition and analysis as well as drafting the manuscript. CS is guarantor and contributed to design, data acquisition, developed analysis and data interpretation methods, as well as drafting the manuscript.
Funding This study was funded by Balt USA.
Competing interests SM is currently an employee of Mentice. DF and CS own stock in Mentice. DF has received travel, consulting, and research support from Balt USA and is on the Editorial Board of JNIS.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.