Retrieval of Migrated Volume Coils Using Different Clot Retrievers in a Porcine Model

Rescue Maneuver of Migrated Coil Using the ERIC Device after Previous Attempts with Conventional Stentrievers

Coil prolapse or migration is a rare but potentially serious complication that may occur during aneurysm embolization, with no standard management currently described. Here we describe our experience with the Embolus Retriever with Interlinked Cages (ERIC) device^® (Microvention, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA) for the retrieval of prolapsed or migrated coils in a case series and Flow-Model analysis. First, a retrospective review was performed using our institution database for patients in which coil prolapse or migration occurred during aneurysm embolization, and data was collected and analyzed. Second, an in vitro Flow-Model analysis was performed comparing the ERIC device^® with other stent retrievers for coil retrieval. In 2 cases, the ERIC device^® successfully retrieved the displaced coil from intracranial circulation in 1 pass, after failure with other devices. In the Flow-Model, again the ERIC device^® achieved success for retrieving a detached coil, whereas 2 other different stent retrievers failed to capture the coil after 2 attempts. The ERIC device^® appears to be a safe and effective tool for retrieving a prolapsed or migrated coil from the intracranial circulation.

Solitaire Stentectomy Using a Stent-Retriever Technique in a Porcine Model

PURPOSE

Mechanical thrombectomy using the Solitaire device has become a standard treatment of ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusions. Inadvertent detachment is a feared complication, which is associated with poor clinical outcome. The aim of this experimental study was to assess in a porcine model the feasibility and effectiveness of rescuing detached Solitaire devices using different stent retrievers.

METHODS

Solitaire FR devices (4 × 15/20 mm and 6 × 20/30 mm) were placed in the axillary artery of pigs. By means of 3 different stent retrievers (Trevo ProVue; EmboTrap II revascularization device; 3D revascularization device) a total of 24 rescue maneuvers (8 per retriever) were performed by deploying the retrievers within the deployed Solitaire devices and trapping parts of the Solitaire within the microcatheter. Rescue rates, rescue time and complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall stentectomy of the Solitaire devices was successful in all cases (100%). Time of rescue was comparable using the applied stent retrievers (Trevo ProVue; EmboTrap II revascularization device; 3D revascularization device). Complications, such as entrapment of the Solitaire-retriever complex at the intermediate catheter, Solitaire migration, vasospasm, perforation, or dissection were not observed.

CONCLUSION

Stentectomy of inadvertently detached Solitaire devices using different stent retrievers is a feasible and effective method. Rescue rates and times with the Trevo ProVue, EmboTrap II and 3D revascularization device were comparable.

Rescue of migrated Woven Endobridge devices using a stent-retriever-technique in a porcine model

PURPOSE

The Woven Endobridge device (WEB) has become widely applied for the treatment of intracranial aneurysms. Complications are rare, however, especially dislocations and migrations can potentially increase poor clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of rescuing migrated Woven Endobridges using different stent retrievers.

METHODS

In a porcine model, Woven Endobridges of different sizes (SLS 4, SLS 7, SL 5 × 3, SL 4 × 3) were placed into the axillary arteries. By means of two different stent retrievers (Solitaire Platinum and 3D Revascularization Device), a total of 20 rescue maneuvers were performed. For this purpose, the retrievers were deployed distally of the migrated Woven Endobridges. After retracting the stent retrievers partially, the Woven Endobridges were trapped within the microcatheter. Rescue rates, time, attempts and complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Successful rescue of the migrated Woven Endobridges was observed in all cases (100%). Rescue was slightly faster (177.8 ± 72.8 s vs. 223.4 ± 104.1 s) with fewer attempts (1.5 ± 0.8 vs. 1.8 ± 0.9) when using the 3D Revascularization Device compared to the Solitaire Platinum. However, there were no significant differences (p = 0.327; p = 0.554). Migration of the Woven Endobridges during rescue was seen with both stent retrievers in a comparable frequency (p = 0.642). Further complications, such as entrapment of the stent-retriever-WovenEndobridge-complex at the intermediate catheter, vasospasm, perforation or dissection, were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Rescue of migrated Woven Endobridges using stent retrievers is a feasible and effective method. Rescue rates, times and attempts with the Solitaire Platinum and 3D Revascularization Device are comparable with each other.

Different Rescue Approaches of Migrated Woven Endobridge (WEB) Devices: an Animal Study

Purpose

Treatment of wide-necked intracranial aneurysms using the Woven Endobridge (WEB) device has become broadly accepted. Feared complications with the potential of increased poor clinical outcome include dislocations and migration of the device. This study was carried out to determine the effectiveness of a variety of different strategies to rescue migrated WEB devices.

Methods

In a porcine model, WEB devices of different sizes (SL [single layer] 3.5 × 2mm and SL 4.0 × 3 mm, SL 8 × 5 mm and SLS 8 mm [single layer spherical]) were placed into both the subclavian and axillary arteries. A total of 32 rescue maneuvers (8 per rescue device) were performed. Small WEBs were rescued using reperfusion catheters (RC) (SOFIA Plus and JET 7), larger WEBs were rescued using dedicated rescue devices (Microsnare and Alligator). Rescue rates, times, attempts and complications were assessed.

Results

Rescue attempts of migrated WEBs were successful in all cases (100%). Rescue time (p = 0.421) and attempts (p = 0.619) of small WEBs using RCs were comparable without significant differences. Aspiration alone was not successful for larger WEBs. Rescue of larger WEBs was slightly faster (122.75 ± 41.15 s vs. 137.50 ± 54.46 s) with fewer attempts (1 vs. 1.37) when using the Microsnare compared to the Alligator device. Complications such as entrapment of the WEB in the RCs, vasospasm, perforation, or dissection were not observed.

Conclusion

Rescue of migrated WEB devices is a feasible and effective method and 100% successful rescue rates and appropriate rescue times can be achieved for small WEBs using RCs and for larger WEBs using dedicated rescue devices (Microsnare and Alligator).