Pulmonary embolism preventing and thrombus removing device

Abstract

Disclosed is a system device integrating a thrombus filtering function, a pulmonary embolism preventing function and a thrombus removing function. The system device is characterized by comprising a thrombus filter screen and a thrombectomy basket, wherein the thrombus filter screen comprises an exterior screen body, an interior screen body and an overall conveying sheath, the interior screen body passes through a cavity of the exterior screen body, the exterior screen body penetrates through the overall conveying sheath, the thrombectomy basket passes through a cavity of the interior screen body, and each of the interior screen body, the exterior screen body and the thrombectomy basket is provided with an extendable part and a retractable part.

Description

technical field [0001] The invention relates to the field of medical devices, in particular to a thrombus protection and removal device, in particular to a pulmonary embolism protection and thrombus removal device. Background technique [0002] Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common potentially fatal emergency, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, with an incidence rate of 4% to 20%. Acute pulmonary embolism (APE) has become a common disease in my country. Cardiovascular system diseases, the fatality rate is 30%, and acute massive pulmonary embolism is a common cause of sudden death. In the United States, the annual incidence of pulmonary embolism is 600,000, and the fatality rate is 25% to 30%. The incidence rate is high; at the same time, if deep vein thrombosis cannot be removed in time, it will form deep vein thrombosis syndrome after a long time. Therefore, timely removal of deep vein thrombosis (especially central venous thrombosis) and prevention ...

AI Technical Summary

Problems solved by technology

Their common disadvantages are: (1) Once the filter captures emboli, it needs to continue thrombolysis and prolong the indwelling time in the body (the indwelling time of the filter is short, generally only 2 to 3 weeks). It is not easy to remove; if the thrombus is large and cannot be dissolved, it will be forced to stay in the body for a long time; (2) The filter needs to be removed and requires corresponding operation techniques, which will increase medical costs; (3) No matter what kind of filter can remove the thrombus, if you want to remove it Thrombosis needs to be combined with thrombolysis, embolism, etc., which needs to be equipped with corresponding equipment, and its medical expenses will increase significantly; , due to the small anchoring space, the vena cava filter often cannot play a protective role; (5) The diameter of the inferior vena cava >35mm is a contraindication for filter implantation

[0012] The disadvantages of surgical thrombectomy are: (1) pre-implantation of inferior vena cava filter is required to prevent pulmonary embolism caused by thrombus dislodgement; (2) surgical incision of soft tissues such as inguinal skin is required, femoral vein is anatomically separated, and thrombolysis with catheter , Suction embolism and other trauma; (3) Technically, surgeons are required to complete it, and interventional surgeons cannot do it independently; (4) Postoperative recurrence rate is high, except for femoral bruises and other serious deep vein thrombosis, there are few. Thrombectomy

[0016] The disadvantages of thrombolytic therapy are: (1) It is often necessary to implant a vena cava filter before surgery to prevent pulmonary embolism caused by thrombus dislodgement; (2) Thrombolysis is not complete, and the instructions of thrombolytic drugs require that the time window for thrombolysis is 12 hours after thrombus formation However, when the patient sees a doctor, the thrombus has often been formed for 3 to 5 days, or even longer, and the old and new thrombus are often mixed, so the thrombus often cannot be completely dissolved; while the systemic thrombolysis is used systemically, the drug concentration at the thrombus site is low, and the thrombus The dissolution rate is lower; (3) The duration is long, and the thrombolysis needs to last for 2 to 3 days, and 5 to 7 days if necessary; (4) The bleeding risk is high during the thrombolysis process, and the intracranial hemorrhage increases by 3 times

[0022] The disadvantages of catheter direct suction embolism are: (1) It is often necessary to implant an inferior vena cava filter before operation to prevent pulmonary embolism caused by thrombus falling off; (3) There are many residual thrombi, and in most cases, the thrombus cannot be completely sucked, and it is often necessary to combine thrombolytic methods and other methods to remove the thrombus.

[0023] The disadvantages of S catheter and AngioJet catheter suction embolism are: (1) the inferior vena cava filter needs to be implanted before operation to prevent pulmonary embolism caused by thrombus shedding; (2) expensive, S Catheter needs to be used in conjunction with Straub power system, except that the patient needs to pay In addition to the cost of the S catheter (about 30,000 yuan each), the hospital needs to be equipped with a Straub power system (about 700,000 yuan); each AngioJet catheter is about 28,000 yuan; the hospital needs to be equipped with a driving device (about 1 million yuan); ( 3) It is suitable for the thrombus filled in the blood vessel. Because of its limited diameter, it is often incomplete to remove the thrombus in the blood vessel with a large diameter such as the wall thrombus and the superior and inferior vena cava, and cannot achieve the purpose of completely removing the thrombus; A lot, the patient loses about 120-200ml of blood per operation

[0024] From the above discussion, it can be seen that the existing thrombus filtering device, thrombus removal technology, and the thrombus filtering device and thrombus removal device in the above-mentioned patent documents all have one or more defects.

Images