E-270 Single-center experience with the large bore catheter for direct aspiration thrombectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Introduction</h3> Mechanical thrombectomy has been established as the mainstay of treatment for large vessel occlusion stroke. Direct aspiration as a first-pass technique in mechanical thrombectomy is attractive due to the cost-effectiveness and timeliness, and has been shown to be non-inferior to stent-retrieval in a randomized study. We present our experience with the Large-Bore Catheter (Cerenovus, Inc.) as the first-pass device in mechanical thrombectomy. <h3>Methods</h3> We retrospectively analyzed all patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy between January, 2021, and January, 2022. Patients were included if the Large Bore catheter was used for direct aspiration on the first thrombectomy attempt. Patient demographics, procedure specifics, imaging, and outcome data were collected. <h3>Results</h3> A total of 50 cases met inclusion criteria, and were included, of which 32 (64%) were male. The average age was 68.8 years. The median ASPECTS score was 9. Median puncture-to-reperfusion time was 14 minutes. First-pass recanalization was achieved in 24 cases (48%). A stentriever was employed for subsequent passes in 20 cases (40%). Successful recanalization (TICI 2b-3) was achieved in 48 cases (96%). Ninety-day outcome data was available for 36 patients. Of these, mRS 0–2 was achieved in 18 (50%) of patients, while 8 patients (22.2%) were dead (mRS 6) at 90 days. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Our single-center experience with the Large Bore Catheter shows successful recanalization and low reperfusion times, with first-pass recanalization in a significant proportion of cases. <h3>Disclosures</h3> <b>S. Ahmed:</b> None. <b>L. Peeling:</b> None. <b>N. Kashani:</b> None. <b>A. Gardner:</b> None. <b>M. Kelly:</b> None.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".