Embolic Agents: Vascular Plugs

  SFX Search  Buy Article Permissions and Reprints History of Vascular Plugs

The advent of vascular plugs for peripheral embolization dates to the early part of this century. To address the deficiencies of coils, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first vascular plug, the Amplatzer vascular plug or AVP (Abbott Laboratories, Illinois), in 2004 for peripheral vascular embolization.[1] The original AVP, a derivative of the Amplatzer septal occluder and Amplatzer duct occluder, was first successfully utilized in the cardiac setting for percutaneous closure of aortopulmonary collaterals in a 4.5-month-old infant.[2] Two years later, interventionalists extended the use of the AVP to treat peripheral vascular malformations in patients with congenital heart disease.[3] The following year, the AVPII was released, which was capable of occluding vessels up to 17 mm in diameter, allowing for expanded clinical applications. As popularity and demand increased for the AVP models, advancements in vascular plug technology followed suit over the past 15 years. Today, vascular plugs have many unique attributes, including various shapes and constructs, microcatheter applications, membranes, and deployment methods ([Tables 1] and [2]).

Table 1 Advantages, disadvantages, and cost of main plug components

Advantages

Disadvantages

Cost

Market examples

Material

Nitinol

Exhibits shape memory and superelasticity.

Most common and readily available plug material on market

Shown to have variable rates of recanalization.

Not shown to have significant intradevice collagenous healing postembolization

$$

AVP, MVP, Caterpillar, AZUR

Polyurethane

Responds to more physical and chemical triggers than nitinol as a shape memory polymer.

Shown to promote stable clot formation long term with reduce rates of recanalization compared with coils and nitinol plugs.

Less expensive than nitinol plugs

Relatively new in the market with limited microcatheter applications.

Current models are on the higher side of the spectrum in regard to device length

$

IMPEDE

Membrane

PTFE

Provides immediate mechanical blockage that is not dependent on thrombogenesis

Slightly adds to the overall cost of the device

$

MVP, Caterpillar, IMPEDE, AZUR

Table 2 Advantages, disadvantages, and cost of plug deployment methods

Advantages

Disadvantages

Cost

Market examples

Plug deployment method

Mechanical:

Screw release

Most common and readily available modality.

Most cost efficacious

Can cause unnecessary strain and torque on nearby vessels upon deployment

$

AVP, MVP, Caterpillar

Mechanical: Button release

Easier and smoother deployment technique than screw release mechanism

Limited current options and research in regard to treatable vessel ranges.

Slightly increases the overall price of a plug

$$

LOBO, AZUR

Electrolytic

Most precise delivery method

Most expensive deployment technique. Takes time for setup

Also, not readily available in many current models

$$$

MVP, AZUR

Publication History

Article published online:
20 December 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif