Angiographic and histologic comparison of injectable, expansile hydrogel embolic and pushable AZUR embolic devices in porcine arteries.

PURPOSE: To compare an injectable hydrogel embolic device with a pushable AZUR device procedurally, angiographically, and histologically in the embolization of porcine arteries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 12 pigs, embolization of renal, gluteal, and hepatic or thoracic arteries was performed with either injectable hydrogel embolic devices (two arteries per pig) or an AZUR device (one artery per pig). Follow-up angiography was performed before sacrifice in five pigs at 7 days after embolization and seven pigs at 90 days after embolization. The harvested tissues were evaluated histologically. Continuous and ordinal results were compared using analysis of variance and χ(2) tests. RESULTS: For the sites with embolization performed with injectable hydrogel, complete angiographic occlusion was obtained in 21 of 24 (88%) sites after treatment, 10 of 10 (100%) sites at 7 days, and 10 of 14 (72%) sites at 90 days. For the sites with embolization performed with AZUR devices, complete angiographic occlusion was obtained in 10 of 12 (83%) sites after treatment, 4 of 5 (80%) sites at 7 days, and 5 of 7 (72%) sites at 90 days. Statistically significant differences in angiographic occlusion were not observed at 7 days (P = .13) or 90 days (P = .35). The embolization time of the injectable hydrogel group (14 minutes ± 8) was significantly reduced (P = .02) compared with the AZUR group (22 minutes ± 12). Differences between the groups in arterial wall damage were not evident at either 7 days or 90 days, although greater damage was observed in both groups at 90 days. In both groups, inflammation was nonexistent to minimal at 7 days and minimal to mild at 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Embolization of porcine arteries was as effective with injectable hydrogel embolic devices as pushable AZUR devices, as evidenced by the procedural, angiographic, and histologic results.