Abstract 308: The CAT‐FLOW Study ‐ Catheter‐Induced Changes In Flow Dynamics In Thromboaspiration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Super large‐bore 8F catheters are increasingly employed in stroke thrombectomy due to perceived technical advantages, including reduction of cerebral blood flow. While volumetric flow rate (ml/min) has been studied extensively, flow velocity (cm/sec) remains underappreciated despite its potential implications for clot behavior during thromboaspiration. The CAT‐FLOW (Catheter‐Associated Thromboaspiration Flow) Study was designed to characterize the interrelationship between volumetric flow rate and flow velocity in an experimental model simulating MCA thromboaspiration. Methods Two experimental flow models were developed for bench testing: Setup 1 (without proximal bypass) and Setup 2 (with proximal bypass) (Figure 1). For each setup, the baseline volumetric flow rate was fixed at 120 ml/min. Relative changes in volumetric flow and tip velocity were measured under open‐flow conditions (reference) and during the introduction of four commercially available large and super large‐bore neurovascular catheters used for thromboaspiration. Each condition was repeated across five independent runs. Results In Setup #1, super large‐bore 088 catheters produced a 4.5‐6.1% reduction in volumetric flow rate but a striking 434.8‐572.8% increase in tip velocity. By comparison, the large bore 072 catheter caused a 3.2% reduction in volumetric flow and a 102.3% increase in velocity. In Setup #2, super large‐bore 088 catheters reduced volumetric flow by 55.2‐58.2% while increasing tip velocity by 150.6‐197.1% . The 072 catheter reduced volumetric flow by 18.5% and increased velocity by 70.3% (Table 1). Conclusions The CAT‐FLOW Study demonstrates that modest reductions in volumetric flow can paradoxically result in pronounced increases in catheter tip velocity, particularly with super large‐bore devices. Elevated tip velocity may contribute to unexpected clot fragmentation , which could influence procedural efficacy and safety. These findings highlight the importance of considering both volumetric flow and velocity when choosing catheters and planning thrombectomy. Further studies are warranted to validate these results and guide optimal device use. image image
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".