ArticleNeurointervention2019
Efficiency of Air Bubble Removal in Preparation of Low-Profile Angioplasty Balloon Catheter: Bench-Top Comparison of Six Methods.
Article in Neurointervention, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeComplete removal of air bubbles from balloons for neurovascular angioplasty is cumbersome. We compared the preparation difficulty, air removal efficiency, and air collection pattern of six different balloon catheter preparation methods to propose a better preparation method for both initial and second balloon uses, especially for small-profile angioplasty balloon catheters. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 18 neurovascular angioplasty balloon catheters with nominal diameters of 2 mm were prepared to test six different preparation methods: the instruction for use method (method A), simplified method using a syringe (method B) and four newly devised preparation methods using inflating devices (methods C-F). Serial radiographs were obtained while the balloons were gradually inflated. We measured the time for each preparation and the bubble number, analyzed their distribution in the balloon, and calculated the contrast filling ratio (contrast filling area/total balloon area) for initial and second ballooning. The whole process was repeated three times.
resultsThe preparation time varied widely (11.5 seconds [method D] to 73.3 seconds [method A]). On initial inflation, the contrast filling ratio at 8 atm was the highest (100%) with methods A and F. On second inflation, the ratio was again highest with method A (99.5%), followed by method F (99.2%). Initial ballooning tended to show a uniform pattern of single bubble in the distal segment of the balloon; in contrast, second ballooning showed varying patterns in which the bubbles were multiple and randomly distributed.
conclusionNone of the six methods were able to completely exclude air bubbles from the balloon catheters including the second ballooning; however, the method of repeating aspiration with high-volume inflating device (method F) could be a practical option considering the simplicity and efficiency of preparation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.