Why the study?
Does the use of hydrophilically coated guide wires and catheters reduce thrombogenicity compared to noncoated devices in canine models?
Does the use of hydrophilically coated guide wires and catheters reduce thrombogenicity compared to noncoated devices in canine models?
Hydrophilic coating reduces thrombogenicity on guide wires but not catheters, while heparinization remains highly effective for reducing clot deposition.
Requires validation before clinical adoption; extends animal data on device coatings while leaving human applicability open.
The thrombogenicities of stainless steel spring guide wires and two hydrophilically coated guide wires were compared. The guide wires were placed in canine femoral arteries for 30 minutes. The guide wires were removed, the thrombi were stripped off, and the clots were weighed. Clot weights obtained with the two hydrophilically coated guide wires were significantly less than those obtained with the stainless steel spring guide wires. The thrombogenicities of hydrophilically coated catheters and noncoated nylon catheters were compared with and without the use of heparin. Carotid arteries, jugular veins, femoral arteries, and femoral veins were used. Catheters were left in place for 45 minutes. The animals were heparinized and killed. The vessels were then removed en bloc with the catheter clamped in place. The vessels were incised, and the clot was removed and weighed. In arterial and venous catheterization, no significant difference in clot deposition was shown between the hydrophilically coated catheters and the noncoated nylon catheters. A striking reduction of thrombogenicity was achieved with heparinization of the catheters in both arteries and veins.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leach et al. (1990) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: