Accelerated aspiration with Q™ catheter: An in vitro study
Rattachement africain : ch, us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: studies focused on performance of ≤5F catheters in medium vessels. 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: 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 5F 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. CONCLUSIONS: The Q catheters demonstrated higher flow rates, higher uncorking force, and faster complete clot ingestion than competitive catheters.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé, mais le titre doit être comparé manuellement.
- Titre Crossref
- Accelerated aspiration with Q™ catheter: An <i>in vitro</i> study
- Date Crossref
- 06/11/2024
- Éditeur
- SAGE Publications
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.