- Why are vegetarians more likely to suffer from depression than meat eaters?
- Small wireless device implanted between skin and skull helps kill cancer cells
- Will the mRNA vaccine that can cure cancer come out near soon?
- Allogeneic T-cell therapy set for landmark first approval
- Boston University denies that the new COVID strain they made has 80% fatality rate
- A new generation of virus-free CAR-T cell therapy
Stent: Why doesn’t the doctor take the blood clot out directly?
Stent: Why doesn’t the doctor take the blood clot out directly? Since the stent can penetrate into a human blood vessel, why doesn’t the doctor directly use the stent to suck out the thrombus in the blood vessel?
Why doesn’t the doctor take the blood clot out directly?
Many family members or friends who put the stent will raise the question: If the stent can be put, why not get the blood clot out?
There are many misunderstandings here:
- Not all blood vessels with stents have thrombi.
- Stent placement and thrombus suction are two techniques.
- Part of the thrombus can be aspirated, but only partially, and even after the thrombus is aspirated, a stent may be required.
- The big data of cardiac thrombosis tells us that for most thrombotic diseases, aspiration of thrombus is not the best choice.
Next, we will answer these misunderstandings one by one:
1. The blood vessel of the stent may not have thrombus
The most common stent is the heart stent, of course, it also includes carotid artery, peripheral vascular stent, renal artery stent and so on. Let’s take a heart stent as an example. When the vascular stenosis of the heart exceeds 80%, most of the drug treatments are not effective at this time. Not only will the angina pectoris be repeated, but also for unstable plaques, because of the angina myocardial ischemia attack, it may also be Causes plaque rupture, thrombosis, and myocardial infarction. Therefore, a stent is needed to control the onset of angina pectoris.
This kind of stenosis requires a stent, but there is no thrombus, there is no thrombus, naturally there is no talk of sucking the thrombus.
2. Stent placement and thrombus aspiration are two techniques
A simple understanding of a stent is to place the stent through a catheter into the narrowed blood vessel. At this time, use a balloon, like a small balloon, to hit the stent with inflation pressure, and the stent will support the narrowed blood vessel. , Withdraw the balloon, then the stenosis of the vascular cavity will return to normal at this time, this is a stent.
Aspiration of thrombus is also through the catheter, and the opening of the catheter is placed at the position of the thrombus. At this time, through negative pressure, that is, suction, the thrombus will be sucked into the catheter. But when the thrombus is aspirated, not all the thrombus can be extracted. A thrombus is a blood clot. The blood clot will not stay in one place. When the catheter touches the thrombus, the thrombus will move and the large thrombus will become Small blood clots, so sucking blood clots is not as perfect as everyone thinks.
3. Even after suctioning, most of them still need a stent
Let’s take a step back and say, even if all the thrombus can be sucked out, there is no thrombus in the blood vessel, but the plaque stenosis still exists. A thrombus is a blood clot formed after a plaque ruptures, that is, a blood clot formed by bleeding on the inner wall of a blood vessel. But the plaque will remain in the blood vessel, even if there is no thrombus, the fixed stenosis will still exist. Without a stent, the blood flow will be slow, not only will the angina pectoris, the slow blood flow in the plaque may also lead to thrombosis.
Therefore, for most blood vessels after thrombus aspiration, a stent may be needed to support the stenosis, so that the official cavity can be restored to normal, angina pectoris can be controlled, and it is helpful to prevent myocardial infarction to a certain extent.
4. Big data tells us that aspiration of blood clots is not the best choice
Finally, let’s take a look at big data, that is, the current myocardial infarction rescue guidelines. These guidelines are derived from big data and a large number of case observations. For acute myocardial infarction, cases of thrombus aspiration did not get better benefits. That is, the thrombus is not sucked well, and it is directly expanded. The stent has a better effect on most myocardial infarctions.
Of course, if the thrombosis is particularly serious, it must be pumped, but the thrombosis does not mean that the stent is not used, because although the thrombosis caused the myocardial infarction, the fixed stenosis still exists.
In short, medical scientists and scientists are definitely better than doctors, and doctors also follow the guidelines. Conversely, isn’t the level of people studying medicine higher than doctors, better than medical scientists?
(source:internet, reference only)