Direct catheter thrombolysis

The current standard for the treatment of thrombosis is the prescription of anticoagulants such as heparin. However, this conventional treatment has not been proven to be as effective as direct catheter thrombolysis, which has demonstrated superior efficacy performance, for example, in check-up controls six months later4. Not only is it more effective, but a reduction in treatment time has also been recorded by infusing the thrombolytic drug at high pressure10, resulting in a lower systemic impact of the lytic agent on the rest of the body.

Direct catheter thrombolysis therefore offers many advantages over alternative therapies and it represents a very effective and safe option for the treatment of thrombus. Mechanical methods have also been developed but they are associated with higher costs and with the possibility of complications such as bradyarrhythmia and hemolysis9.

The Unifuse Direct Infusion Catheter and Pulse-Spray Pressure Infusion System

Unifuse

Uni-Fuse-Infusion-4

Pulse Spray

Pulse-Spray-infusion-system-1811264038332
Download the Brochure UNIFUSE
Download the Brochure PULSESPRAY

Unifuse has been the forerunner and market leader for direct infusion catheters with its patented slit technology that allows for a consistent and evenly distributed lytic agent to be infused into the obstruction area.

Responsive Pressure Openings: a Tested and Patented Technology

For more than twenty years, responsive pressure opening technology has guided the treatment of peripheral occlusions with catheter-directed thrombolysis. The uniqueness of the openings allows uniform distribution of the fluid volume along the entire length of the infusion segment3 resulting in a 12 times greater advantage of the patented slit technology of the Uni-Fuse catheter compared to traditional catheters with side hole.

images-1

Uniform Distribution Means Faster Obstruction Treatment

The Uni-Fuse catheter delivers as much lytic agent as possible onto the largest possible surface of the obstruction to increase the rate of lysis, to speed up enzymatic action and to minimize drug dilution2-5. Side-opening catheters different from Unifuse, on the other hand, follow the path of least resistance, often resulting in a deviation of the thrombolytic agent from the thrombus site into collateral vessels proximal and distal to the thrombus, based on catheter placement.

images-2

Extreme technical qualities

The Uni-Fuse catheter is distinguished by many unique features, which make it suitable for the most varied indications of use.

The infusion segment, for example, is always delimited by two clearly visible radiopaque markers, and the occluding ball guide wire ensures that the drug comes out only from the lateral holes. In addition, the catheter is available in lengths from 45cm to 135cm, in 4Fr or 5Fr, and with infusion segments from 2cm to 50cm in length. Precisely this extreme variety of configurations makes it possible to use it in the most distal vessels of the peripheral system, rather than in the treatment of pulmonary thromboembolism

images-5

Bibliography

  1. Baldwin Z, et al. Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Deep Venous Thrombosis. Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2004; 28,1:1-9.
  2. Bookstein JJ, Valki K. Pulse-Spray Pharmacomechanical Thrombolysis - How I Do It. Cardiovascular Interventional Radiology 1992; 15:228-233.
  3. Cho KJ, Recinella DK. Pattern of Dispersion from a Pulse-Spray Catheter for Delivery of Thrombolytic Agents: Design, Theory and Results. Academic Radiology 1997; 4:210-216.
  4. Elsharaway M, Elzayat E. Early Results of Thrombolysis vs Anticoagulation in Iliofemoral Venous Thrombosis. A Randomised Clinical Trial. E Journal of Endovascular Surgery 2002; 24.
  5. Kandarpa K, Drinker PA, Singer SJ, Caramore D. Forceful Pulsatile Local Infusion of Enzyme Accelerates Thrombolysis: In Vivo Evaluation of a New Delivery System. Radiology 1988; 168:739-7
  6. Mewissen M, et al. Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Lower Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis: Report of a National Multicenter Registry. Radiology 1999; April:39-49.
  7. Razavi M, Charles Semba. The Changing Role of Thrombolytic Therapy in the Management of Acute Deep Vein Thrombosis. Therapy 2005; 2,1:57-59.
  8. Yusuf SW, et al. Immediate and Early Follow-up Results of Pulse Spray Thrombolysis in Patients with Peripheral Ischaemia. British Journal of Surgery 1995; 82:338-340.
  9. Zhu D. Abstract. Journal of Invasive Cardiology 2008; 20:2A-4A.
  10. Yusuf SW, et al. Prospective Randomised Comparative Study of Pulse Spray and Conventional Local Thrombolysis. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 1995; 10:136-141