4.4 Article

Clot friction variation with fibrin content; implications for resistance to thrombectomy

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROINTERVENTIONAL SURGERY
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 34-38

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012721

关键词

Stroke; Thrombectomy

资金

  1. Neuravi Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Despite significant advancements in the procedural efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy in patients with ischemic stroke in recent years, there still remains a portion of the population that does not achieve good recanalization. The reasons for this may be varied. We hypothesized that static friction between the clot and the vessel, or catheter wall might contribute to the difficulty in removing the clot. Objective To determine if there is a relationship between clot composition and the resistance to sliding (friction) which might contribute to resistance to clot removal. Methods As clot composition can vary significantly, we investigated five different types of clot in order to measure their respective frictional properties. To do this, a custom-made testing apparatus was created, consisting of various replaceable low-friction surfaces on which the clots could be placed. The surface was then gradually tilted until the clots began to slide; the angle at which this occurred is related to the coefficient of friction of the clots. The experiment was repeated on a bovine aortic surface in order to confirm the results. Results We found that fibrin-rich clots (<20% red blood cell content) have a significantly higher coefficient of friction than clots with a red blood cell content >20%. This result was confirmed by repeating the experiment on a bovine aortic surface as a representation of the interaction between clots and the arterial wall. Conclusions The friction properties of clots were found to be related to the content ratio of fibrin to red blood cells. Future imaging techniques that could show fibrin and red blood cell content might help us to predict the stickiness' of a clot.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据