Skip to main content
. 2024 Feb 20;3(4):101269. doi: 10.1016/j.jscai.2023.101269

Table 4.

Percutaneous mechanical aspiration devices used in infective endocarditis.

Device Access Cannula size Length (cm) Steerability Aspiration mechanism Aspiration power Blood return Advantages Disadvantages
Large bore
 AngioVac F22 26F 25F outer; 22F inner 77.0 ++ V-V or V-A ECMO +++ Yes Strong continuous aspiration forces; lower embolic risk; blood return Vascular injury risk; structural damage risk; learning curve; cost and logistical challenges in setup; perfusionist availability
 AngioVac F18 22F 18F 105.0 ++ V-V or V-A ECMO +++ Yes
 AlphaVac F22 26F 25F outer; 22F inner 77.0 ++ Manual aspiration (handle) ++ No Efficient setup; single access; strong pulling force Vascular injury risk; intermittent aspiration; contact with vegetation (risk of embolization); no blood return mechanism
 AlphaVac F18 22F 18F 105.0 ++ Manual aspiration (handle) ++ No
 Inari FlowTriever 22-26F 20F or 24F outer and 20F T20 curve 95.0 (20F and 24F) and 113.0 (T20 curve) + Manual aspiration (syringe) +++ Yes Efficient setup; single access; strong pulling force; blood return Vascular injury risk; structural damage risk; flow power not continuous
Small bore
 Penumbra Lightning 12 12F steerable sheath 12F 115.0 +++ Engine mediated + No Efficient setup; less risk of vascular injury; less risk of structural damage; steerability; maneuverability Modest aspiration forces; need for contact with vegetation (risk of embolization); no blood return mechanism