使用 Q™ 导管加速抽吸:体外研究

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 Medicine
Philippe Reymond, Mayra Contreras, Olivier Brina, Trent Langston, Naomi Chesler, Waleed Brinjikji, John Wainwright, Paolo Machi
{"title":"使用 Q™ 导管加速抽吸:体外研究","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":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Thrombectomy in distal, medium vessels is a topic of increasing interest. To date, there are few <i>in vitro</i> 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using <i>in vitro</i> 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Q catheters demonstrated higher flow rates, higher uncorking force, and faster complete clot ingestion than competitive catheters.</p>","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":"{\"title\":\"Accelerated aspiration with Q™ catheter: An <i>in vitro</i> 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\":\"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Thrombectomy in distal, medium vessels is a topic of increasing interest. To date, there are few <i>in vitro</i> 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using <i>in vitro</i> 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Q catheters demonstrated higher flow rates, higher uncorking force, and faster complete clot ingestion than competitive catheters.</p>\",\"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}","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

摘要

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

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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...
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信