O07 Accelerated aspiration with Q catheter: an in vitro study

Résumé fourni par la source

Introduction Thrombectomy in distal, medium vessels is a topic of increasing interest. To date there are few in vitro studies focused on performance of ≤ 5F catheters in medium vessels Aim of Study The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of the 3F, 4F, and 5F MIVI Neuroscience Q Catheters versus Penumbra 3F, 4F, and MicroVention Sofia 5F Catheters. Methods Using in vitro methods, we assessed and compared the following parameters: aspiration flow rates, clot uncorking forces, impulse, and clot ingestion. For flow rate, each aspiration catheter was immersed in a cylindrical container. Flow rate at one second was used to calculate impulse. For clot uncorking force, the force required to disengage a catheter from a simulated clot was recorded. For ingestion, we measured time to ingest soft and medium stiffness synthetic clots. Results The measured flow rates without a stent retriever for the Q3, Q4 and Q5 catheters were 3.54 ml/s, 5.32 ml/s and 6.87 ml/s. The measured flow rates without a stent retriever for the 3MAX, 4MAX and 5Fr Sofia were 1.46 ml/s, 2.56 ml/s and 1.73 ml/s. The impulse calculated for one second was 26 mNs for Q5 vs 9 mNs for Sofia 5, 35 mNs for Q4 vs 15 mNs for 4Max and 35 mNs for Q3 vs 9 mNs for 3Max. The average system ingestion for Q was significantly faster than the competitive catheters. Conclusion The Q catheters demonstrated higher flow rates, higher uncorking force, and faster complete clot ingestion than competitive catheters. Disclosure of Interest yes Competing interests: Trent Langston is employees of MIVI Neuroscience. John Wainwright is a former employee of MIVI Neuroscience. Mayra Contreras, Waleed Brinjikji, and Naomi Chesler are consultants for MIVI Neuroscience. Waleed Brinjikji: MIVI Neuroscience, Medtronic, MicroVention, and Balt. Paolo Machi is a consultant for MIVI Neuroscience, Medtronic, Stryker and MicroVention.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.