Back

Mechanical thrombectomy with the Vecta 46 catheter: a safety and outcome analysis

Hutchinson, H. J.; DeYoung, C. L.; Sarathy, D.; Hey, G.; Gillam, W.; Amini, S.; Chowdhury, M. A. B.; Lucke-Wold, B.; Sorrentino, Z.; Koch, M. J.

2025-10-20 surgery
10.1101/2025.10.17.25338262 medRxiv
Show abstract

2.BackgroundThe AXS Vecta 46 intermediate catheter (Stryker) provides a large enough inner diameter to achieve effective aspiration with a small enough outer diameter and soft distal-tip flexibility to track safely through more tortuous and smaller arterial segments to non-traumatically target medium vessel occlusions. The efficacy of the Vecta 46 in the spectrum of large and medium vessel occlusions has not been well elucidated in the literature. MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent MT for acute ischemic stroke at the University of Florida between July 2022 and June 2024. The outcomes of patients treated with the Vecta 46 was compared to that of all other catheters used at the institution. ResultsThe distribution of aspiration and stent retriever attempts in Vecta 46 procedures versus non-Vecta 46 procedures was significantly different (p = 0.00325). Aspiration was attempted 1.66 {+/-} 0.936 times in the Vecta 46 group and 1.12 {+/-} 0.650 times in the non-Vecta 46 group (p = 0.00135). More mechanical thrombectomies with the Vecta 46 included aspiration of a secondary thrombus (p = 0.0314), despite no difference in distribution of primary or secondary occlusion location. There were no statistically significant differences in recanalization success (p = 0.800), recanalization time (p = 0.245), procedure duration (p = 0.580), discharge modified Rankin Score (p = 0.875), or intracranial hemorrhage rate (p = 0.720) between non-Vecta 46 and Vecta 46 procedures. ConclusionsVecta 46 has similar safety and functional outcomes compared to other endovascular treatment options despite procedural differences.

Published in Journal of Vascular Diseases · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.