MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413011563 · doi:10.1016/j.jaccas.2025.104628

Intracoronary Thrombectomy Using an Off-Label 7-F Power Aspiration System for Inferior STEMI With Large Thrombus Burden

2025· article· en· W4413011563 on OpenAlexaff
Ibrahim Khayyat, Ali Bessisow, Jean-Philippe Pelletier, Elie Akl

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Case Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrombusMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Significant thrombus burden can hinder successful reperfusion after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Thrombectomy devices may help reduce thrombus load, with recent advancements such as continuous vacuum aspiration now available through catheters connected to the Penumbra ENGINE. CASE SUMMARY: We present the case of a 79-year-old woman with inferior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and significant thrombus burden in an ectatic right coronary artery, in which the use of 7-F Lightning 7 aspiration tubing (Penumbra) achieved effective clot retrieval and enabled successful percutaneous coronary intervention. DISCUSSION: Lightning 7 aspiration tubing is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for coronary intervention, making this, to our knowledge, the first reported case of successful coronary thrombus aspiration using a 7-F continuous aspiration catheter. Delivery to the distal right coronary artery required very supportive wires, and while the larger lumen enabled more effective thrombus removal, careful attention to blood loss is essential. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: Lightning 7 aspiration tubing may be safe and feasible to use in appropriately sized coronary arteries; however, distal vessel access is limited.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC Case ReportsSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207