Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25934786›Full record

ArticleInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2015

Endovascular biopsy: Technical feasibility of novel endothelial cell harvesting devices assessed in a rabbit aneurysm model.

Daniel L Cooke, Diana Bauer, Zhengda Sun, Carol Stillson, Jeffrey Nelson, David Barry, Steven W Hetts, Randall T Higashida, Christopher F Dowd, Van V Halbach and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Endovascular biopsy in neurointerventional surgery: A systematic review.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Towards precision medicine for brain arteriovenous malformations.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Spatially resolved transcriptomics for evaluation of intracranial vessels in a rabbit model: Proof of concept.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel L CookeDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA Daniel.cooke@ucsf.edu.
Diana BauerLaboratory Animal Resource Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Zhengda SunDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Carol StillsonDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jeffrey NelsonDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
David BarryPenumbra Inc, Alameda CA, USA.
Steven W HettsDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Randall T HigashidaDepartment of Radiology, Neurology, and Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Christopher F DowdDepartment of Radiology, Neurology, and Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Van V HalbachDepartment of Radiology, Neurology, and Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Hua SuDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Maythem M SaeedDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · USNeurological Surgery · USPenumbra (United States) · US

Funding

Uncover the Pathogenesis of Brain Arteriovenous MalformationR01NS027713 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SU, HUA · 1990 to 2023
$8.6M
Cell type-specific influences on HHT pathogenesisR01HL122774 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SU, HUA · 2015 to 2018
$1.6M
Soluble VEGF receptor therapy for brain arteriovenous malformationR21NS083788 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SU, HUA · 2014 to 2015
$790k
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL122774NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS027713NINDS NIH HHS R21 NS083788
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The lack of safe and reliable methods to sample vascular tissue in situ limits discovery of the underlying genetic and pathophysiological mechanisms of many vascular disorders, including aneurysms. We investigated the feasibility and comparable efficacy of in vivo vascular endothelial cell sampling using a spectrum of endovascular devices. Using the rabbit elastase carotid aneurysm model we evaluated the performance of existing aneurysmal coils, intracranial stents, and stent-like devices to collect vascular endothelial cells. Additionally, we modified a subset of devices to assess the effects of alterations to coil pitch, coil wire contour, and stent surface finishing. Device performance was evaluated by (1) the number of viable endothelial cells harvested, (2) the degree of vascular wall damage analyzed using digital subtraction angiography and histopathological analysis, and (3) the ease of device navigability and retrieval. Isolated cells underwent immunohistochemical analysis to confirm cell type and viability. Coil and stent specifications, technique, and endothelial cell counts were tabulated and statistical analysis performed. Using conventional detachable-type and modified aneurysm coils 11 of 14 (78.6%) harvested endothelial cells with a mean of 7.93 (±8.33) cells/coil, while 15 of 15 (100%) conventional stents, stent-like devices and modified stents harvested endothelial cells with a mean of 831.33 (±887.73) cells/device. Coil stiffness was significantly associated with endothelial cell count in univariate analysis (p = 0.044). For stents and stent-like devices univariate analysis demonstrated stent-to-aorta diameter ratios (p = 0.001), stent length (p = 0.049), and the use of a pulling retrieval technique (p = 0.019) significantly predictive of endothelial cell counts, though a multivariate model using these variables demonstrated only the stent-to-aorta diameter ratio (p = 0.029) predictive of endothelial cell counts. Modified devices did not significantly impact harvesting. The efficacy and safety of existing aneurysm coils, intracranial stents and stent-like devices in collecting viable endothelial cells was confirmed. The technique is reproducible and the quantity and quality of collected endothelial cells is adequate for targeted genetic analysis.

Indexed as

Endothelial CellsEndovascular ProceduresAneurysmAnimalsBiopsyDisease Models, AnimalEndothelium, VascularFeasibility StudiesRabbitsTissue and Organ Harvestinganeurysmcoilendothelial cellstentStroke

Identifiers

PMID25934786
PMCPMC4757193
OpenAlexW2140889496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.