Skip to main content
. 2013 May 21;19(2):147–152. doi: 10.1177/159101991301900201

Table 2.

Comparison of arterial damage in the device and control samples.

Solitaire 4
(n = 4)
Solitaire 6
(n = 4)
Catch
(n = 4)
Merci
(n = 4)
Penumbra
(n = 4)
Wall-
Contact†
(n = 16)
All Device
(n = 20)
Control
(n = 20)
P Value*

Endothelial
denudation
85.8 ± 22.9 76.2 ± 12.8 76.1 ± 21.2 85.9 ± 12.1 40.1 ± 47.6 81.0 ± 16.8 72.8 ± 29.4 0.9 ± 1.9 0.0001

Mural
thrombus
14.1 ± 28.1 0 9.4 ± 15.6 3.1 ± 6.2 0 6.6 ± 15.7 5.3 ± 14.2 0 0.05

Intimal
layer edema
43.8 ± 51.5 81.3 ± 65.7 43.8 ± 37.5 66.5 ± 47.1 100 ± 89.1 58.8 ± 48.9 67 ± 56.2 44.6 ± 43.6 0.25

IEL
fractured†
12.5 ± 14.4 25 ± 35.4 18.8 ± 23.9 50 ± 100 12.5 ± 14.4 26.6 ± 51.2 23.7 ± 46.2 20.6 ± 33.3 0.78

Medial layer
edema
25 ± 0 37.5 ± 43.3 81.3 ± 23.9 41.5 ± 35.2 75 ± 35.4 46.3 ± 34.8 52 ± 35.9 18.1 ± 27.8 .004

EEL
fractured
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA

Adventitia
edema
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA

Note: Data are the means (%) ± standard deviation.(%)
IEL = Internal elastic lamina; EEL = External elastic lamina; NA = Non applicable;
Wall-contact devices including Merci retriever, Catch thromboembolectomy system and Solitaire FR revascularization devices 4 and 6 mm;
* Mann-Whitney Test comparing all device samples combined with control samples.