In vitro Remote Aspiration Embolectomy for the Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: "Remote aspiration," using suction from the proximal internal carotid artery (ICA) to open terminus occlusions, has been reported in small case series. However, it remains unclear whether remote aspiration is feasible for middle cerebral artery occlusions in the setting of potential inflow from communicating arteries. We performed an in vitro study to assess whether suction applied at various locations proximal to an occlusion could successfully aspirate the clot. METHODS: A glass model of 4 mm inner diameter (ID) with 1 mm distal narrowing and 2 mm side branch to simulate a communicating artery was constructed. A proximal side branch was placed to simulate inflow from the proximal ICA. The impact of three different-sized catheters (ID 0.088, 0.070, and 0.056 in) on histologically different (red blood cell-cell rich, fibrin-rich, and mixed) clot analogues was tested with the catheter tip placed remotely either distal or proximal to the collateral branch. Aspiration was attempted with (1) open system (flow in both the ICA and the collateral branch, (2) flow arrest with open collateral (no flow in the ICA, but flow in the collateral branch), and (3) closed system (no flow in either the ICA or the collateral branch). The outcome was success or failure of remote aspiration. RESULTS: For the 0.088-in catheter, remote aspiration was successful in all conditions. For the 0.070-in catheter, remote aspiration was unsuccessful without proximal flow arrest, but was successful in all other scenarios. For the 0.056-in catheter, remote aspiration was successful only with complete flow arrest. CONCLUSIONS: In a noncollapsible system, remote aspiration can be successfully achieved even in the setting of prominent branch arteries by using relatively large aspiration catheters. Proximal flow arrest may facilitate successful remote aspiration for some catheter sizes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".