Comparison of clinical, technical, and safety outcomes between the Sofia 5Fr catheter vs. the Sofia 6Fr catheter; a MaSQ-Registry study.

Background: Direct aspiration during endovascular treatment (EVT) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients is safe and effective. The 'Soft torqueable catheter Optimized For Intracranial Access' (Sofia) catheter is commonly used. Data on differences between 5Fr and 6Fr Sofia is limited. Hence, we aimed to compare the clinical, technical, and safety outcomes between both Sofia catheters in AIS patients.
Methods: Patients with an intracranial anterior circulation occlusion from the 'Maastricht Stroke Quality-registry' (MaSQ-registry), who underwent EVT for AIS from September 2020 to February 2023, and treated with the Sofia catheter in the first-line technique were included. Outcomes included a shift on the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days, favorable functional outcome (mRS 0-2), first-attempt recanalization rate, and per procedural complications. Multivariable regression analyses were performed with adjustments.
Results: Out of 511 registered patients in the MaSQ-registry, 366 patients were included. 281 patients (77 %) were treated with the Sofia 6Fr. No shift towards better outcomes on the ordinal mRS score at 90 days was observed in the Sofia 6Fr group compared to the 5Fr (adjusted common[ac] OR:1.34, 95 %CI:0.70-2.56). Favorable functional outcome (aOR:1.24, 95 %CI:0.49-3.13), and per procedural complications (aOR:1.04, 95 %CI:0.41-2.64) did not differ significantly between Sofia 6Fr and 5Fr. The Sofia 6Fr achieved higher first-attempt successful recanalization rates (53 % versus 34 %; aOR:2.28, 95 %CI:1.11-4.69), and lower total thrombectomy attempts (median:1 versus 2; aβ:-0.63, 95 %CI:-1.21 to -0.05).
Conclusions: The use of 6Fr Sofia aspiration catheter leads in this single-center registry to higher first-attempt successful recanalization rates and fewer thrombectomy attempts compared to the 5Fr Sofia catheter. However, this did not reflect in better clinical outcomes.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest WHvZ reports speaker fees from Stryker, Cerenovus, and Nicolab, and consulting fees from Philips (all paid to institution); participated in the advisory boards of WeTrust (Philips) and ANAIS (Anaconda) (all paid to institution); and participated in the advisory boards of InEcxtremis (CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France) and DISTAL (University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland), studies for which no payments were received. All other authors declare no competing interests.
(Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)