Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with endoluminal flow diverters (single or multiple) has proven to be clinically safe and effective, but is associated with a risk of thromboembolic complications. Recently, a novel biomimetic surface modification with covalently bound phosphorylcholine (Shield Technology™) has shown to reduce the material thrombogenicity of the Pipeline flow diverter. Thrombogenicity of Pipeline Flex, Pipeline Shield, and Flow Redirection Endoluminal Device (FRED) in the presence of human blood under physiological flow conditions—in addition to relative increase in thrombogenicity with multiple devices—remains unknown and was investigated here. Thrombin generation (mean ± SD; μg/mL; thrombin–antithrombin complex or TAT) was measured as FRED (30.3 ± 2.9), Pipeline (13.9 ± 4.4), Pipeline Shield (0.4 ± 0.3), and negative control (no device; 0.1 ± 0.0). Platelet activation (mean ± SD; IU/μL; beta‐thromboglobulin or βTG) was measured as FRED (148 ± 45), Pipeline (92.8 ± 41), Pipeline Shield (16.2 ± 3.5), and negative control (2.70 ± 0.16). FRED was significantly more thrombogenic than Pipeline and Pipeline Shield (p < 0.05) for TAT. Additionally, Pipeline Shield had significantly lower TAT and βTG than the other devices tested (p < 0.05) and these were comparable to the negative control (p > 0.05). TAT and βTG scaled proportionately with multiple Pipeline devices (N = 6) but was unaffected by multiple Pipeline Shield (N = 6) devices—the latter being statistically similar to negative control (p > 0.05). © 2018 The Authors. Journal Of Biomedical Materials Research Part A Published By Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 106A: 3195–3202, 2018.

Flow diversion is a disruptive technology for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. However, these intraluminal devices pose a risk for thromboembolic complications despite dual antiplatelet therapy. We report the thrombogenic potential of the following flow diversion devices measured experimentally in a novel human blood in-vitro pulsatile flow loop model: Pipeline™ Flex Embolization Device (Pipeline), Pipeline™ Flex Embolization Device with Shield Technology™ (Pipeline Shield), Derivo Embolization Device (Derivo), and P64 Flow Modulation Device (P64). Thrombin generation (Mean ± SD; μg/mL) was measured as: Derivo (28 ± 11), P64 (21 ± 4.5), Pipeline (21 ± 6.2), Pipeline Shield (0.6 ± 0.1) and Negative Control (1.5 ± 1.1). Platelet activation (IU/μL) was measured as: Derivo (4.9 ± 0.7), P64 (5.2 ± 0.7), Pipeline (5.5 ± 0.4), Pipeline Shield (0.3 ± 0.1), and Negative Control (0.9 ± 0.7). We found that Pipeline Shield had significantly lower platelet activation and thrombin generation than the other devices tested (p < .05) and this was comparable to the Negative Control (no device, p > .05). High resolution scanning electron microscopy performed on the intraluminal and cross-sectional surfaces of each device showed the lowest accumulation of platelets and fibrin on Pipeline Shield relative to Derivo, P64, and Pipeline. Derivo and P64 also had higher thrombus accumulation at the flared ends. Pipeline device with Phosphorylcholine surface treatment (Pipeline Shield) could mitigate device material related thromboembolic complications.

BackgroundThe Pipeline Vantage Embolization Device with Shield Technology is a next generation flow diverter developed to improve aneurysm occlusion and implant endothelialization in addition to lowering thrombogenicity. We report here the in vivo biocompatibility and in vitro hemocompatibility performance of the Pipeline Vantage Embolization Device with Shield Technology (Vantage) compared with the Pipeline Flex Embolization Device (Flex).MethodsBiocompatibility (via histology), aneurysm occlusion and vessel patency (via angiography), and endothelial coverage (via scanning electron microscopy (SEM)) for the Vantage and Flex devices were assessed in the rabbit elastase aneurysm model at 90 days (n=29) and 180 days (n=27). In vitro thrombogenicity for Flex and Vantage (n=16) was assessed using a human blood flow loop model at low heparin concentration (0.6 U/mL) with thrombin generation, platelet activation and thrombus visualization as outputs.ResultsRaymond Roy Occlusion Classification grade 1 was higher for Vantage (61%) compared with Flex (46%), but was not statistically significant (p>0.05). All branch vessels were patent. Histological measures for both devices were similar (p>0.05). Endothelial coverage of the implant was significantly better for Vantage compared with Flex (p<0.05). In vitro measurements of thrombin generation (thrombin-antithrombin complex (µg/mL): Vantage 0.49±0.45; Flex 10.57±9.84) and platelet activation (β-thromboglobulin (IU/µl): Vantage 0.41±0.19; Flex 4.14±2.38) were both statistically lower (p<0.05) for Vantage compared with Flex. High resolution microscopy showed less accumulation of thrombus on Vantage as compared with Flex.ConclusionVantage improved aneurysm occlusion and implant endothelialization and had significantly lower thrombogenicity as compared with Flex, while preserving the biocompatibility safety profile of Flex.

No abstract

No abstract