Endovascular procedures are being used more and more frequently to treat various cardiac and vascular surgical problems. Blocked arteries can be treated with angioplasty, endarterectomy, and/or stenting, using minimally invasive endovascular approaches. Aneurysms can be repaired by endovascular techniques. Another use for endovascular surgery is the treatment of cardiac valvular disease. Valvuloplasties are already being done endovascularly and percutaneous valve replacement will surely follow, as it has already been tested in Europe. A major problem which is common to all these endovascular manipulations is that plaque found in the diseased vessels and valves can be dislodged and result in embolization. A major drawback to endovascular treatment of cardiac valves and arteries in the heart or thoracic aorta is that the dislodged debris can embolize into the carotid vessels resulting in catastrophic consequences such as stroke or even death. Attempts have been made to protect the cerebral vasculature with filters and other devices, but the inadequacy of the present art is obvious in the fact that these devices are rarely used. The plethora of pending patent applications for such protection devices suggests both the inadequacy of the present art and the need for improved devices.
The majority of devices described are filters. The problems with filters include difficulty in placement and retrieval as well as the possibility that a filter will fill abruptly causing blockage of the artery prior to removal of the filter. Cerebral protection requires placement of filters in the carotid arteries, which has the additional drawback of manipulation of the carotid vessels during filter placement while the cerebral vasculature is still unprotected. The risk of stroke for a carotid arteriogram done by cannulation of the carotid artery is 1% compared to an arteriogram done from injection into the aorta without selective cannulation which carries minimal risk. The risk of cannulating a carotid artery, navigating a catheter containing a filter into position, and deploying the filter would likely carry an even higher stroke risk. Patients requiring cardiac or aortic arch procedures are high risk candidates for having carotid disease. The chance of causing a stroke by the placement of the protective device into both carotid arteries makes the risk of using these devices prohibitive. The time and skill necessary to selectively cannulate both carotid arteries for filter placement has also contributed to the decision not to use them despite the stroke risk of unprotected cardiac and aortic arch procedures.
The present invention comprises a deflector umbrella. In use, the invention is placed into the aortic arch by the Seldinger technique, preferably through the right arm but it may also be placed via the femoral artery. It is deployed in the aortic arch, where the umbrella is opened and pulled back into position to cover the ostia of both the brachiocephalic and left common carotid arteries.
The deflector (“umbrella”) of the present invention is positioned prior to any manipulation of the heart or thoracic aorta. It is simple to place and carries only the risk of catheterizing the aorta through the arm or leg, which is minimal. The umbrella is opened in the thoracic aorta and positioned to cover the ostia of both the brachiocephalic and left common carotid arteries. This position prevents clots or debris from entering the cerebral circulation through either the right or left carotid arteries with one simple device. Any debris from the cardiac or aortic procedure is deflected downstream. After the procedure is complete, the umbrella is inverted by means of a sheath extended over the catheter wire, which then wholly or partially covers the inverted umbrella prior to withdrawal. Should any clot or debris be attached to the outer side of the umbrella, it will be captured in the inverted umbrella and withdrawn. A major advantage of the device is that one size fits all, so it can be kept available in stock.
The umbrella is preferably dome-shaped with an adequate diameter to cover the ostia of both the brachiocephalic and left common carotid arteries, made of a material with pores or similar openings or permeability to allow the flow of blood into the cerebral circulation, but able to deflect or trap particles of a size which could cause a stroke (as depicted in
When the umbrella is to be closed, a tube or sheath of larger diameter than the knob is extended over the guide wire until it engages the knob. The umbrella is pulled back so that it inverts and is enclosed in the tube for removal. Inverting the device assures that no trapped particles escape into the bloodstream. The device is preferably constructed of polymer, fabric, metal, or a combination of these materials. The device may also optionally be equipped with radio-opaque markers or other structural parts which are radio-opaque for aid in placement guidance.
Another embodiment of the device has a rolled edge.
The device may also have a flat porous edge.
Another embodiment of the device has no struts, but instead has a nitinol skeleton.
Another embodiment has multiple wires to position and anchor the device.
Another embodiment of the device has anchors at the edges which help to maintain its position during the procedure.
Another embodiment of the device is parachute-like, with a ring gasket at its edge. The gasket would be held firmly in position over the ostia of the brachiocephalic and left common carotid arteries. The billowy porous middle section would deflect or trap clot and debris on its exterior surface while causing minimal resistance in the aorta. The middle portion would be inverted as it is removed by pulling on wires attached to its center, capturing any clot stuck to it.
Alternatively, the center of the device may comprise a screen, which fits more snugly against the aortic wall, with a very small profile, further preventing resistance to downstream aortic bloodflow. Again the device would be removed by inversion, capturing any debris stuck to it prior to removal.
The device may be round, oval or rectangular or of another shape to assist in sealing of the edge against the wall of the aorta, covering the ostia of both the brachiocephalic and left common carotid arteries and maintaining a low profile within the lumen of the aorta.
This device could be modified in size in another embodiment in order to be used to cover the ostia of different vessels.
The device may be coated with something which prevents clots (e.g., heparin).
The device may be deployed through an artery of the arm, or through the femoral artery. The preferred method would be through the right arm, if possible, as this would allow the device to be pulled back against the aortic wall to place it (
When deployed through the femoral artery (
Brachial Artery Insertion of the Device.
Referring now to
Femoral Artery Insertion of the Device.
Referring now to
Deployment of the Device via Arm Approach.
Referring now to
Deployment of the Device via Femoral Approach.
Referring now to
Embolic Deflecting Device.
Referring now to
The center of the umbrella has a knob 130 on the inside surface to which the struts 120 are attached. The device 100 is pushed out of the delivery catheter with a tube which engages this knob 130. This knob 130 helps with the opening of the umbrella. The knob 130 remains attached to the umbrella “handle”, the guide wire used to pull the umbrella into position. The device 100 may also open as a result of the material it is made of, nitinol or polymer, resuming its shape after being released from its sheath.
The device is constructed of polymer, fabric, metal, or a combination of these materials. The device may be provided with radioopaque markers or metal parts which are radioopaque.
Another embodiment of the device has a rolled edge. The device could also have a flat porous edge. Another embodiment of the device has no struts, but a nitinol skeleton. Another embodiment has multiple wires to position and anchor the device. Another embodiment of the device has anchors at the edges which help to maintain its position during the procedure.
Another embodiment of the device is parachute-like, with a ring gasket at its edge. The gasket would be held firmly in position over the ostia of the brachiocephalic and left common carotid arteries. The billowy porous middle section would deflect or trap clot and debris on its exterior surface while causing minimal resistance in the aorta. The middle portion would be inverted as it is removed by pulling on wires attached to its center, capturing any clot stuck to it. Alternatively, the center of the device could be a screen, which fits more snugly against the aortic wall, with a very small profile, further preventing resistance. Again the device would be removed by inversion, capturing any clot stuck to it prior to removal.
The device may be round, oval or rectangular or of another shape to assist in sealing of the edge against the wall of the aorta, covering the ostia of both the brachiocephalic and left common carotid arteries and maintaining a low profile within the lumen of the aorta. This device could be modified in size in another embodiment in order to be used to cover the ostia of different vessels. The device may be coated with something which prevents clots (e.g. heparin).
While the invention has been described in its preferred embodiments, it is to be understood that the words which have been used are words of description rather than of limitation and that changes may be made within the purview of the appended claims without departing from the true scope and spirit of the invention in its broader aspects. Rather, various modifications may be made in the details within the scope and range of equivalents of the claims and without departing from the spirit of the invention. The inventor further requires that the scope accorded the claims be in accordance with the broadest possible construction available under the law as it exists on the date of filing hereof (and of the application from which this application obtains priority, if any) and that no narrowing of the scope of the appended claims be allowed due to subsequent changes in the law, as such a narrowing would constitute an ex post facto adjudication, and a taking without due process or just compensation.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4619246 | Molgaard-Nielsen et al. | Oct 1986 | A |
5634942 | Chevillon et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5662671 | Barbut et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5695519 | Summers et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5769816 | Barbut et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5911734 | Tsugita et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5989281 | Barbut et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5993469 | McKenzie et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6027520 | Tsugita et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6042598 | Tsugita et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6117154 | Barbut et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6152946 | Broome et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6235045 | Barbut et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6245088 | Lowery | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6251122 | Tsukernik | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6254563 | Macoviak et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6258120 | McKenzie et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6270513 | Tsugita et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6336934 | Gilson et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6346116 | Brooks et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6348063 | Yassour et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6361545 | Macoviak et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6371935 | Macoviak et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6371969 | Tsugita et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6375670 | Greenhalgh | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6391044 | Yadav et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6395014 | Macoviak et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6423086 | Barbut et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6447530 | Ostrovsky et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6499487 | McKenzie et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6511497 | Braun et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6537297 | Tsugita et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6547760 | Samson et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6626937 | Cox | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6645221 | Richter | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6673089 | Yassour et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6695811 | Samson et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6695864 | Macoviak et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6706053 | Boylan et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6726702 | Khosravi | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6740112 | Yodfat et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6866680 | Yassour et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6962598 | Linder et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6989019 | Mazzocchi et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6994092 | van der Burg et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7083633 | Morrill et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7112213 | Maahs | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7144408 | Keegan et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7172614 | Boyle | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7174636 | Lowe | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7217255 | Boyle et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7229463 | Sutton et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7229464 | Hanson et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7232453 | Shimon | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7235061 | Tsugita | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7241304 | Boyle et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7241305 | Ladd | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7244267 | Huter et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7252675 | Denison et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7261727 | Thielen et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7303575 | Ogle | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7323001 | Clubb et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7367985 | Mazzocchi et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7604650 | Bergheim | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7618446 | Andersen et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7670356 | Mazzocchi | Mar 2010 | B2 |
20020077596 | McKenzie et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020128679 | Turovskiy et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020128680 | Pavlovic | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020138094 | Borillo et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020143362 | Macoviak et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020161394 | Macoviak et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020169437 | Macoviak et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020169474 | Kusleika | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030120304 | Kaganov et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030125801 | Yodfat et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030158574 | Esch et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030208224 | Broome | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030220667 | van der Burg et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040010307 | Grad et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040010308 | Zafrir-Pachter | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040024416 | Yodfat et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040034386 | Fulton et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040088002 | Boyle et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040093014 | Ho et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040111111 | Lin | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040158281 | Boylan et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040167568 | Boyle et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040167613 | Yodfat et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040215167 | Belson | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050085847 | Galdonik et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050119688 | Bergheim | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050267516 | Soleimani et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050283185 | Linder et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060015138 | Gertner | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015141 | Linder et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060058833 | VanCamp et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060129180 | Tsugita et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060161241 | Barbut et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060241678 | Johnson et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060253148 | Leone et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060287670 | Pal | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060293706 | Shimon | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070043435 | Seguin et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070123931 | Gilson et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070135834 | Clubb et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070270901 | Shimon et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080004688 | Spenser et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080051807 | St. Goar et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080065146 | Mazzocchi et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080065147 | Mazzocchi et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080109055 | Hlavka et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080114440 | Hlavka et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080140110 | Spence | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080140189 | Nguyen et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080255603 | Naor et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080275489 | Kinst et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20090062908 | Bonhoeffer et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20100312268 | Belson | Dec 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO 2006076505 | Jul 2006 | WO |
Entry |
---|
U.S. Appl. No. 12/440,839, filed Mar. 11, 2009, Carpenter. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/685,539, filed Jan. 11, 2010, Carpenter et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/685,560, filed Jan. 11, 2010, Carpenter et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/685,570, filed Jan. 11, 2010, Carpenter et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/685,591, filed Jan. 11, 2010, Carpenter et al. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability, PCT/US07/78170 mailed Mar. 17, 2009, p. 5. |
International Search Report dated Mar. 2, 2010 for PCT App. No. PCT/US2010/020530. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/892,767, filed Sep. 28, 2010, Belson. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20080065145 A1 | Mar 2008 | US |