ArticleAmerican journal of cardiovascular disease2012
Safety and efficacy of the Aperio thrombectomy device when compared to the Solitaire AB/FR and the Revive devices in a pulsatile flow system.
Article in American journal of cardiovascular disease, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the Aperio HybridInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025Article
- Thrombectomy for Anterior Circulation Stroke with a Hybrid Cell Design Stent Retriever: A Multicenter Registry.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2025Article
- Cerebrovascular Pressure Restoration Rates during Recanalisation with Aspiration and Stent-Retriever Thrombectomy for Acute Ischaemic Stroke: An in Vitro Study.Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 2025Article
- Preclinical testing platforms for mechanical thrombectomy in stroke: a review on phantoms, in-vivo animal, and cadaveric models.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2021Review
- Reperfusion therapy in acute ischemic stroke: dawn of a new era?BMC neurology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThere are a limited number of studies comparing the Aperio mechanical thrombectomy device to other stent-based devices. In this paper, we compared the Aperio thrombectomy device to the Solitaire AB, FR and Revive devices in a model of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) within a modified pulsatile flow system.
methodsThrombi made of lamb's blood were placed into a pulsatile flow system perfused with Hartmann's solution at 80 bpm with a mean pressure of 90 mm Hg. 30 experiments were run with each device.
resultsRecanalization rates were similar for all three devices (90% with the Solitaire AB, FR, 80% with the Revive, and 90% with the Aperio). The mean number of attempts to retrieve the thrombus was also similar for all three devices (1.7 with the Solitaire AB, FR, 2.1 with the Revive, 1.6 with the Aperio). Clot fragmentation and embolization rates revealed no statistical significance but there was a trend towards lower embolization rates with the Aperio (23% compared to 40% with the Solitaire AB, FR and 47% with the Revive). The Aperio was the fastest to recanalize the MCA (mean of 66 seconds compared to 186 seconds for the Solitaire AB, FR and 169 seconds for the Revive).
conclusionsIn this in vitro setting, the Aperio device seems to be an efficacious and safe device when compared to other similar clinically used mechanical thrombectomy devices. Larger clinical trials are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23173104PMC3499937What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.