Accelerated aspiration with Q™ catheter: An in vitro study.

IF 1.7 4区医学 Q3 Medicine

Interventional Neuroradiology Pub Date : 2024-11-06 DOI:10.1177/15910199241273974

Philippe Reymond, Mayra Contreras, Olivier Brina, Trent Langston, Naomi Chesler, Waleed Brinjikji, John Wainwright, Paolo Machi

{"title":"Accelerated aspiration with Q™ catheter: An in vitro study.","authors":"Philippe Reymond, Mayra Contreras, Olivier Brina, Trent Langston, Naomi Chesler, Waleed Brinjikji, John Wainwright, Paolo Machi","doi":"10.1177/15910199241273974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and purpose: 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. 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 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.","PeriodicalId":14380,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Neuroradiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15910199241273974","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: 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. 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 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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

使用 Q™ 导管加速抽吸：体外研究

背景和目的：在远端中型血管中进行血栓切除术是一个越来越受关注的话题。迄今为止，很少有体外研究关注≤5F 导管在中等血管中的性能。本研究旨在比较 3F、4F 和 5F MIVI Neuroscience Q 导管与 Penumbra 3F、4F 和 MicroVention Sofia 5F 导管的性能：我们使用体外方法评估并比较了以下参数：抽吸流速、血块开塞力、冲力和血块摄取。关于流速，每根抽吸导管都浸入一个圆柱形容器中。一秒钟的流速用于计算脉冲。对于血块脱开力，我们记录了将导管从模拟血块中脱开所需的力。对于摄取，我们测量了摄取软性和中等硬度合成血块的时间：结果：Q3、Q4 和 Q5 导管在不使用支架牵引器的情况下测得的流速分别为 3.54 毫升/秒、5.32 毫升/秒和 6.87 毫升/秒。索菲亚 3MAX、4MAX 和 5F 导管在不使用支架复位器的情况下测得的流速分别为 1.46 毫升/秒、2.56 毫升/秒和 1.73 毫升/秒。计算出的一秒钟冲力分别为：Q5 为 26 毫牛顿，索菲亚 5 为 9 毫牛顿；Q4 为 35 毫牛顿，4Max< 为 15 毫牛顿；Q3 为 35 毫牛顿，3Max 为 9 毫牛顿。Q 型导管的平均系统摄取速度明显快于竞争导管：结论：与竞争导管相比，Q 导管具有更高的流速、更大的开塞力和更快的完全血块摄取速度。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Interventional Neuroradiology 医学-核医学

CiteScore

2.80

自引率

11.80%

发文量

192

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Interventional Neuroradiology (INR) is a peer-reviewed clinical practice journal documenting the current state of interventional neuroradiology worldwide. INR publishes original clinical observations, descriptions of new techniques or procedures, case reports, and articles on the ethical and social aspects of related health care. Original research published in INR is related to the practice of interventional neuroradiology...