P-015 The zoom system demonstrates higher first pass effect and faster reperfusion as compared to a consecutive contemporaneous series of aspiration catheters: analysis from a multicenter retrospective cohort (2021)

<h3>Background</h3> Modern aspiration catheters have revolutionized thrombectomy outcomes. The Zoom System is series of catheters, with ID’s of 0.045, 0.055, 0.071, and 0.088, that are advertised as being designed to support superior stroke thrombectomy performance. We aimed to preliminarily evaluate such claims by retrospectively assessing technical outcomes in a consecutive series of M1 ELVOs in which aspiration was the first line approach. <h3>Methods</h3> We performed a retrospective multicenter analysis of consecutive ELVO patients with M1 occlusion treated within 24 hours from the time of last known well. Patients were divided into two cohorts: those in whom the Zoom 088 or 071 was the initial technology used to attempt reperfusion and those in whom any other aspiration catheter was used for initial reperfusion attempt. The primary outcome was excellent reperfusion (TICI≥2C) on first pass. Secondary outcomes included the rate of excellent reperfusion and successful reperfusion (TICI≥2B), access to successful reperfusion time, and occurrence of downstream emboli. All data was self-adjudicated. No outside funding was provided for this analysis. <h3>Results</h3> Total of 660 patients with acute M1 occlusion who underwent thrombectomy were identified. Zoom System catheters (088 or 071) were used as primary aspiration catheter in 172 patients, while 488 patients were treated with other aspiration catheters (ranging from 064 to 074). The baseline mRS score, admission NIHSS score, the rate of intravenous thrombolytic therapy, symptom onset to hospital arrival, and use of anesthesia were not different between the cohorts. The primary outcome, first pass excellent reperfusion, was significantly higher in the Zoom System cohort (51% vs 41%, p=0.02). The rate of excellent reperfusion was significantly higher in the Zoom cohort (68% vs 59%, p=0.04), however, there was no difference in the rate of successful reperfusion (96% vs 94%, p=0.78). Access time to final reperfusion was significantly faster in the Zoom cohort (27 vs 35 minutes, p&lt;.0001). After adjusting for confounding factors (age, thrombectomy technique, use of secondary aspiration catheter), access time to TICI 2B (30 vs 35 minutes, p=0.028) and final recanalization (25 vs 31 minutes, p=0.018) were significantly shorter in the Zoom System cohort. <h3>Conclusion</h3> This retrospective, multicenter, consecutive real-world experience suggests that using Zoom 088 or 071 as primary aspiration catheter may demonstrate superior technical outcomes for M1 thrombectomy. <h3>Disclosures</h3> <b>S. Majidi:</b> None. <b>J. Vargas:</b> 2; C; Cerenovus, Medtronic. 4; C; Truvic. <b>H. Hawk:</b> None. <b>S. Nimjee:</b> None. <b>A. Zakeri:</b> None. <b>M. Mokin:</b> 2; C; Medtronic, Cerenovus. <b>R. Kellogg:</b> None. <b>R. DeLeacy:</b> None. <b>G. Cortez:</b> None. <b>A. Aghaebrahmin:</b> None. <b>E. Sauvageau:</b> None. <b>R. Hanel:</b> 1; C; Microvention, Stryker. 2; C; Medtronic, Microvention, Stryker, Balt, Cerenovus, Q’Apel. <b>A. Siddiqui:</b> 2; C; Imperitive Care, Medtronic, Microvention, Penumbra, Q’Apel, Stryker. 4; C; Imperitive Care, Q’Apel, Truvic, RiSt. <b>M. Oselkin:</b> None. <b>E. Marlin:</b> None. <b>A. Turk:</b> 2; C; Impertive care, stryker, medtronic, penumbra, balt, cerenovus. 4; C; imperitive care. <b>R. Turner:</b> 2; C; Q’Apel, Cerenovus, Medtronic, Siemens. 4; C; Q’Apel. <b>I. Chaudry:</b> 2; C; Medtronic, Microvention, Q’Apel. 4; C; Q’Apel. <b>J. Milburn:</b> None.