Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 19, 2025
Novel Percutaneous Approach for Deployment of 3D Printed Coronary Stenosis Implants in Swine Models of Ischemic Heart Disease
Published on: February 18, 2020
Support and guide performance comparison of balloon guide catheters
Takashi Matsumoto1, Masataka Takeuchi2, Atsushi Uyama2
1Department of Neurosurgery, Toho University Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Insights
The Optimo balloon guide catheter (BGC) provided better support, while the Branchor and Flowgate BGCs demonstrated superior guiding performance in mechanical thrombus retrieval models.
Area of Science:
- Biomedical Engineering
- Medical Device Technology
- Interventional Cardiology
Background:
- Mechanical thrombus retrieval utilizes various balloon guide catheters (BGCs).
- Direct comparative data on BGC supporting and guiding performance is lacking.
- This study evaluates three BGCs: Branchor, Flowgate, and Optimo.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the supporting and guiding performance of Branchor, Flowgate, and Optimo BGCs.
- To provide data for selecting optimal BGCs in endovascular procedures.
Main Methods:
- Utilized a type 3 aorta artificial vascular model for testing.
- Assessed supporting performance via inner catheter insertion resistance and BGC slippage.
- Evaluated guiding performance by measuring BGC reach, insertion resistance, and inner catheter slippage.
Main Results:
- No significant difference in supporting performance across all tested BGCs.
- Optimo BGC suggested better supporting performance in initial trials.
- Branchor and Flowgate BGCs demonstrated significantly superior guiding performance compared to Optimo.
Conclusions:
- Optimo BGC exhibits superior supporting capabilities.
- Branchor and Flowgate BGCs offer enhanced guiding performance.
- BGC selection should consider a balance between supporting and guiding needs.
Background:
Several types of balloon guide catheters (BGCs) are used in mechanical thrombus retrieval. However, direct comparisons of their supporting and guiding performance have not been reported. We compared the supporting and guiding performance of the Branchor, Flowgate, and Optimo BGCs using a type 3 aorta artificial vascular model.
Methods:
An inner catheter was pushed into the artificial vascular model using a linear actuator for the supporting performance evaluation. A previously placed BGC in the internal carotid artery was then intentionally caused to slip. Supporting performance was evaluated by measuring the distance the BGC slipped and generated maximum resistance during Inner catheter insertion. For the guiding performance experiment, a linear actuator was used to guide the BGC into the internal carotid artery of the artificial vessel model. The guiding performance was evaluated by measuring the distance reached by the BGC, maximum resistance generated during insertion of the guiding catheter, and distance the inner catheter slipped. Each experiment was replicated 5 times.
Results:
No statistically significant differences were observed in the results of the five supporting performance experiments. However, the results of the first and second experiments suggested that the Optimo offers better supporting performance. In the guiding performance experiment, significant differences were observed, suggesting that the Branchor and Flowgate have superior guiding performance in comparison with the Optimo.
Conclusion:
The Optimo offered superior supporting performance, while the Branchor and Flowgate showed better guiding performance than the Optimo.
