Use the labels in the right column to find what you want. Or you can go thru them one by one, there are only 33,729 posts. Searching is done in the search box in upper left corner. I blog on anything to do with stroke. DO NOT DO ANYTHING SUGGESTED HERE AS I AM NOT MEDICALLY TRAINED, YOUR DOCTOR IS, LISTEN TO THEM. BUT I BET THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET YOU 100% RECOVERED. I DON'T EITHER BUT HAVE PLENTY OF QUESTIONS FOR YOUR DOCTOR TO ANSWER.
Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain!trillions and trillions of neuronsthatDIEeach day because there areNOeffective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.
What this blog is for:
My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.
Will your competent? doctor and hospital be DOING ANYTHING WITH THIS?
Do you
prefer your doctor, hospital and board of director's incompetence NOT
KNOWING? OR NOT DOING? Your choice; let them be incompetent or demand
action!
Bioness’s PoNS system is designed to improve gait impairment in stroke patients by stimulating the trigeminal and facial cranial nerves.
Bioness Medical’s oral neuromodulation system for rehabilitating stroke patients with gait deficits has secured clearance from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The California-based company’s portable neuromodulation stimulator (PoNS) system delivers neurostimulation through a mouthpiece placed on the tongue. Designed for at-home use in conjunction with physical rehabilitation, the prescription-only device stimulates branches of the trigeminal and facial cranial nerves, activating direct connections to the brainstem. This treatment approach promotes the development of new neural networks to compensate for impaired corticospinal pathways, with the aim of improving walking function in individuals following a stroke, Bioness stated. The device’s clearance for stroke rehabilitation was supported by Bioness’s three-study Stroke Registrational Program (SRP) that evaluated PoNS’ safety and efficacy in conjunction with physical rehabilitation therapy as compared to physical therapy (PT) alone over a 12-week treatment period. Bioness acquired the PoNS system product line from original developer Solana Company (formerly known as Helius Medical Technologies) in April 2026. Prior to the transaction, for which financial terms were not publicly disclosed, PoNS held an FDA indication for multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment.&mThe 159-patient SRP met its primary endpoint, with statistically significant improvements on the Functional Gait Assessment (FGA) scale. Treatment with PoNS plus PT led to an adjusted mean change in FGA of 5.37 points at week 12, versus a non-clinically meaningful change of 3.31 points in the control group. Meanwhile, 45% more subjects treated with PoNS responded to treatment on the basis of a six-point FGA increase threshold, with at least 30% more on the basis of a ≥4-point or ≥5-point improvement threshold. Bioness’ CMO, Antonella Favit-Van Pelt, commented: “The totality of data in chronic stroke survivors with gait deficits confirms the broader evidence of PoNS therapeutic effect in improving walking disability by transitioning the outcome of physical therapy alone to a clinically meaningful effect with a 45.5% increased response rate to PoNS treatment as compared to PT alone.”
Neuromodulation is having a significant impact in the healthcare space for the treatment of conditions ranging from sleep apnoea and chronic migraine to major depressive disorder (MDD). According to GlobalData analysis, the global neuromodulation device market is projected to reach a valuation of over $13bn in 2035, up from around $6.8bn in 2025.
Rhythm Pharmaceuticals is switching up the tempo for its melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) agonist Imcivree. After its initial approval more than five years ago to treat certain patients with genetic-driven obesity, the drug is moving into a different and broader realm with an FDA nod for acquired hypothalamic obesity (HO).
Acquired HO, for which Imcivree is the first approved treatment, represents an “expanded thinking” on the weight-regulating MC4R pathway that Rhythm’s product targets, Chief Scientific Officer Alastair Garfield, Ph.D., explained in a recent interview with Fierce.
Until now, all of Imcivree’s approved uses have centered around specific genetic causes. HO, on the other hand, is a result of a hypothalamic injury such as a tumor or stroke that impairs the MC4R pathway and causes weight gain and insatiable hunger (hyperphagia).
Imcivree scored its first FDA approval in 2020 to treat obesity due to genetically confirmed POMC, PCSK1 or LEPR deficiencies. Then, two years later, it added monogenic obesity due to Bardet-Biedl syndrome to its label.
Moving outside of its bread-and-butter of genetic diseases is “a bit of a watershed moment” for Rhythm, Garfield said, presenting a “step-change in market potential” for the drug.
The company estimates there’s an acquired HO patient population of about 10,000 in the U.S, a figure picked up from literature, tumor registries and claims data, Rhythm said in a press release. As part of its launch in the indication, Rhythm is placing importance on educating physicians and patients who might have the condition. Garfield anticipates the drug’s reach in the indication will be “a bit of a growth story,” but, as for a global patient spread, he thinks the company can “find these patients wherever we go looking.”
Imcivree’s FDA approval was supported by Rhythm’s phase 3 Transcend trial, which saw a mean 18.4% improvement in body mass index (BMI) changes for Imcivree-treated patients. The mean BMI change from baseline came out to a 15.8% reduction for those taking the treatment, compared with a 2.6% BMI increase in the placebo group, according to the company.
“This is a transformative milestone for Rhythm and reinforces our commitment to bringing meaningful therapies to patients living with rare MC4R pathway diseases,” CEO David Meeker, M.D., said in the company’s release.
The new label specifically allows Imcivree’s use to reduce excess body weight and maintain reductions over the long term in adults and pediatric patients aged 4 years and older with acquired HO.
In a note to clients, Leerink analysts called the nod a “significant label expansion” that bolsters the company’s leadership position in the genetic obesity space. The approval brings Rhythm to a “major inflection point,” the analysts wrote, noting that the company has “successfully transitioned from an R&D-stage biotech to a commercial-stage company with durable revenue visibility.”
Imcivree is Rhythm’s sole commercial product and garnered $194.8 million in 2025 sales.
The FDA’s blessing in acquired HO marks a welcome reprieve from a trial fail Rhythm reported earlier this week, which ended its hopes of expanding into a different subset of genetic obesities. Still, considering how “pivotal” the MC4R pathway is to defining body weight, “I think there are many more places where we’re going to learn in time our approach is going to be the most effective,” Garfield said. The executive spoke with Fierce Pharma before the latest results dropped.
As it stands, a potential expansion into Prader-Willi syndrome is “front and center for us,” Garfield noted.
Obesity lessons
Rhythm cracked into the obesity space in its small genetic corner before Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk busted the market wide open with their popular GLP-1 products for general obesity. When Lilly and Novo’s drugs rose to widespread popularity a few years back, Rhythm ultimately learned a “very valuable lesson,” Garfield said.
“We were concerned we were going to be the proverbial damsel in distress,” Garfield said, painting a picture of the smaller pharma “tied to the railway tracks as these two juggernauts of Novo and Lilly came careening across us.”
Instead, Rhythm came to find out that “a rising tide lifts all boats,” Garfield said, referring to how the GLP-1s have increased awareness and interest in obesity therapeutics.
Of course, that increased awareness comes with further education to be done on the differences between hyperphagia and general obesity and battling the notion that all obesity is the same. But, with additional awareness and proof that the MC4R mechanism works in the “right” populations, Rhythm can “put a moat around our patient populations,” Garfield said. In the future, he expects obesity to become an "umbrella term" with well-defined subsets underneath the broader definition.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
has announced a new recall for the ablation catheters associated with
Johnson & Johnson MedTech’s Varipulse pulsed field ablation (PFA)
system. No devices need to be returned or removed from the market.
Instead, the FDA is urging all customers to read updated instructions
provided by Johnson & Johnson MedTech.
The recall comes after
approximately 3% of patients treated with the device during the early
stages of its U.S. rollout experienced a stroke or transient ischemic
attack shortly after treatment. The expected stroke rate is closer to
1%(Even that is unacceptable!), the FDA explained, prompting this action.
In total, four serious injuries have been linked to this issue.
This
is a Class I recall, which means the FDA believes patients face a risk
of serious injury or death if they use the devices without reviewing the
updated instructions.
These safety concerns provide additional
context after Johnson & Johnson MedTech paused the U.S. rollout of
its Varipulse PFA system in early January and then resumed its rollout nearly six weeks later.
Johnson & Johnson MedTech’s recommendations for Varipulse users
Johnson
& Johnson MedTech has shared a letter with all of its customers
highlighting several recommendations for the use of its Varipulse PFA
system going forward. Those recommendations include:
Review
findings from the company’s investigation into the reported
periprocedural strokes and adhere to the updated instructions.
Share this information with patients when determining if treatment with this PFA system is right for them.
Be
aware of a planned U.S. post-approval study designed to further
investigate the benefits and risks associated with this device.
Be aware of the known and inherent risk of neurovascular events that may occur during catheter-based ablation procedures.
Follow patients who received ablation procedures with the device according to their standard of care.
Ensure that your facility is aware of these concerns and the updated instructions.
Johnson
& Johnson MedTech previously noted that these issues do not impact
Varipulse cases performed outside the U.S. due to the “unique platform
configuration” used to evaluate U.S. cases.
Recall follows FDA approval in 2024
Johnson & Johnson MedTech first gained FDA approval for the Varipulse PFA system in November 2024. The agency had previously approved Medtronic’s PulseSelect and Affera systems and Boston Scientific’s Farapulse system.
The
FDA made its decision after reviewing data from the admIRE clinical
trial, which included 277 patients who underwent treatment with the
Varipulse system throughout the United States. The study linked PFA with
Varipulse to acute procedural success in 100% of patients and a primary
effectiveness success rate of 75%.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
has announced a new recall for the ablation catheters associated with
Johnson & Johnson MedTech’s Varipulse pulsed field ablation (PFA)
system. No devices need to be returned or removed from the market.
Instead, the FDA is urging all customers to read updated instructions
provided by Johnson & Johnson MedTech.
The recall comes after
approximately 3% of patients treated with the device during the early
stages of its U.S. rollout experienced a stroke or transient ischemic
attack shortly after treatment. The expected stroke rate is closer to
1%, the FDA explained, prompting this action.
In total, four serious injuries have been linked to this issue.
This
is a Class I recall, which means the FDA believes patients face a risk
of serious injury or death if they use the devices without reviewing the
updated instructions.
These safety concerns provide additional
context after Johnson & Johnson MedTech paused the U.S. rollout of
its Varipulse PFA system in early January and then resumed its rollout nearly six weeks later.
Johnson & Johnson MedTech’s recommendations for Varipulse users
Johnson
& Johnson MedTech has shared a letter with all of its customers
highlighting several recommendations for the use of its Varipulse PFA
system going forward. Those recommendations include:
Review
findings from the company’s investigation into the reported
periprocedural strokes and adhere to the updated instructions.
Share this information with patients when determining if treatment with this PFA system is right for them.
Be
aware of a planned U.S. post-approval study designed to further
investigate the benefits and risks associated with this device.
Be aware of the known and inherent risk of neurovascular events that may occur during catheter-based ablation procedures.
Follow patients who received ablation procedures with the device according to their standard of care.
Ensure that your facility is aware of these concerns and the updated instructions.
Johnson
& Johnson MedTech previously noted that these issues do not impact
Varipulse cases performed outside the U.S. due to the “unique platform
configuration” used to evaluate U.S. cases.
Recall follows FDA approval in 2024
Johnson & Johnson MedTech first gained FDA approval for the Varipulse PFA system in November 2024. The agency had previously approved Medtronic’s PulseSelect and Affera systems and Boston Scientific’s Farapulse system.
The
FDA made its decision after reviewing data from the admIRE clinical
trial, which included 277 patients who underwent treatment with the
Varipulse system throughout the United States. The study linked PFA with
Varipulse to acute procedural success in 100% of patients and a primary
effectiveness success rate of 75%.
At the very bottom, they tell you this: does not have FDA approval for this purpose, so future action may involve seeking this approval.
So your competent? doctor would have to know of this research and buck the system to use it on you as a stroke patient! Do you really think your doctor is up to that challenge? I bet they don't even know of this research.
A
new study has found that between tenecteplase and alteplase treatment,
the former leads to slightly better stroke recovery. Image credit:
Mihajlo Ckovric/Stocksy.
Ischemic strokes occur when there is blocked blood flow to the brain, something that can result in permanent disability.
Doctors can use certain medications to dissolve blood clots when they are the cause of blockage in an ischemic stroke.
A
recent paper reports that the use of the drug tenecteplase may lead to
slightly better functional and disability outcomes than alteplase for
people who experience acute ischemic stroke. (Slightly better IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH YOU BLITHERING IDIOTS! 100% recovery is good enough. GET THERE!)
Strokes are a common cause of death and disability in the United States. Ischemic strokes are the most common stroke type, which have to do with the obstruction of blood flow to the brain.
Doctors are interested in what medications can best assist people who experience ischemic strokes to improve overall outcomes.
A systematic review and meta-analysis recently published in Neurology, the American Academy of Neurology’s medical journal, compared the effectiveness of two clot-dissolving medications doctors use to treat ischemic stroke: tenecteplase and alteplase.
Researchers
found that tenecteplase had a higher association with excellent
functional outcome and decreased disability 3 months after a stroke than
alteplase.
The results of this review support increasing the use of tenecteplase in clinical practice.
Tenecteplase vs alteplase: How do they compare?
Taking action to dissolve clots can be part of ischemic stroke treatment. Alteplase has to be administered within hours of when stroke symptoms start.
The
authors of the current review noted that “alteplase is the only
approved systemic reperfusion treatment of acute ischemic stroke.”
However, they also noted that some groups, like the European Stroke
Organisation, have recommended using tenecteplase as an alternative for
ischemic stroke treatment.
Researchers sought to compare the use
of tenecteplase and alteplase within four and a half hours of stroke
symptom onset. They also examined tenecteplase’s efficacy and safety.
This
review and meta-analysis included 11 randomized controlled trials. The
authors identified these trials through a systematic literature search.
From
all the trials, researchers were able to examine data from 3,788
participants who received tenecteplase, and 3,757 participants who
received alteplase. These participants had similar baseline
characteristics, stroke symptoms, and time of treatment intervention.
The main outcome researchers looked for was excellent function outcome at 3 months after a stroke occurred.
Excellent function was described as a score of 0 to 1 on the modified Rankin Scale, which corresponds to either no symptoms post-stroke or some symptoms but no significant disability.
Researchers
also looked at several secondary outcomes, like good functional
outcome, which indicates a stroke recovery level range of no symptoms to
slight disability.
Based on their analyses, participants
who received tenecteplase were more likely to experience an excellent
functional outcome compared to participants who received alteplase.
Tenecteplase-treated participants also had a lower risk for disability 3
months post-stroke compared to alteplase-treated participants.
Researchers
observed similar rates of good functional outcome, safety, all-cause
mortality, and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage between the treatment
groups.
Are there different types of tenecteplase?
In a subgroup analysis, the researchers distinguished between two types of tenecteplase: original and biocopy.
Advertisement
Based
on the findings from two studies, the review authors did not find a
significant difference in excellent functional outcome rates in
participants who received biocopy tenecteplase and participants who
received alteplase.
However, the authors noted that these two studies likely “do not have enough statistical power to demonstrate superiority.”
They
further conducted a trial sequential analysis to see if they could
firmly conclude teneteplase’s effectiveness. This analysis suggested
that tenecteplase is effective.
José Morales, MD,
a vascular neurologist and neurointerventional surgeon at Providence
Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, CA, who was not involved in
this review, explained to Medical News Today that:
“When
tenecteplase (TNK) was first released and trialed for clinical use in
acute stroke, there were a lot of mixed signals. Some initial reports
indicated TNK achieved better recanalization rates, had less bleeding
complications, and possibly could provide a longer therapeutic window
([over] 4.5 hours). None of these have been borne out in randomized
trials, but there was a clear signal of TNK’s non-inferiority both in
terms of safety and efficacy compared to tPA [alteplase]. Meta analyses
such as these are helpful to consolidate data and achieve the sample
size necessary to draw meaningful statistical comparisons where
individual trials might have fallen short.”
What are the implications for people who had a stroke?
This
research suggests that tenecteplase may lead to slightly better
outcomes for people who experience ischemic stroke. Thus, the study
authors advocate for transitioning to tenecteplase in clinical practice.
Morales
noted that: “The capacity to administer clot-busting medications is the
first step for any hospital hoping to serve patients at need. The ease
of use of TNK continues to be backed by valid clinical data and has
implications for systems of care.”
“For instance,” he
added, “since tPA administration required an infusion, this impacted
timely transfer between stroke centers for escalation of care. TNK
offers the advantage of not only being easier to use, but also now has
growing validated clinical data supporting its safety and efficacy.”
Christopher Yi, MD,
a board-certified vascular surgeon at Memorial Orange Coast Medical
Center in Fountain Valley, CA, also not involved in the study, further
emphasized the clinical benefits of using tenecteplase:
“The
clinical implications include a shift in standard practice towards
using TNK as the preferred thrombolytic agent for AIS [acute ischemic
stroke] within the early 4.5-hour window. Given its ease of
administration, TNK could streamline the thrombolysis process, reduce
treatment times, and facilitate faster transfers between hospitals.
Additionally, adopting TNK widely may improve patient outcomes and
reduce healthcare costs due to its effectiveness.”
“However,”
Yi cautioned, “challenges such as regulatory barriers, availability,
and medicolegal considerations must be addressed to implement this
transition effectively. The findings advocate for TNK’s broader
implementation, potentially leading to modifications in treatment
protocols and guidelines across various healthcare systems.”
Is tenecteplase approved for stroke treatment in the US?
The
limitations of this review are also worth acknowledging. First, its
authors pointed out, that at the time they conducted the meta-analysis,
three of the trials had not had detailed study results published.
Second,
the meta-analysis was a study-level analysis, which does not allow for
certain actions like subgroup analyses and confounding adjustments.
There
were also different types of tenecteplase under review, so more
research may be required to examine the difference between original
tenecteplase and biocopy tenecteplase.
Researchers were also
limited by trials available for analysis, which came from a limited
number of countries. Finally, all included trials had their own
limitations that could have affected any of the results of the analyzed
trials.
The researchers were able to identify certain concerns of
the trials that could have affected the results, such as certain
participants not receiving randomized treatment and one trial where they
could not guarantee masking. The trial sequential analyses also made
certain assumptions.
Despite these limitations, if future research
continues to confirm tenecteplase’s superiority, it may become more
widely used in clinical practice.
Alteplase
has been a first-line treatment for ischemic stroke for decades and has
approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this purpose.
Currently, tenecteplase, while approved as a treatment for heart attacks, does not have FDA approval for this purpose, so future action may involve seeking this approval.
CorTec has announced today that the US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) has approved an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) application
by the University of Washington School of Medicine (UW) involving the
closed-loop Brain Interchange Implant System. This clinical study will
investigate a novel stroke rehabilitation treatment using cortical
stimulation to enhance plasticity within the brain. With the clearance
of the Brain Interchange System for human use CorTec is prepared to
serve clinicians and research groups with its advanced implant
technology to investigate novel treatment options for neurological
diseases.
With the Brain Interchange System, CorTec aims to provide a fully
implantable closed-loop Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) to clinicians for
the investigation of therapies. According to CorTec CTO Dr. Martin
Schuettler, this closed-loop functionality provides new possibilities
for highly individualized treatments. He states, "The system is capable
of interchanging information between biology and technology, between
brain and computer. That's why we call it CorTec Brain Interchange. With
our system, we are providing the technological tools that are needed to
develop new therapies and brain-computer interface applications."
With FDA clearance secured, CorTec joins forces with partners in the
USA to continue the development of novel therapies. The first IDE study1
involving the Brain Interchange System will be conducted in
collaboration with one of the world’s leaders in the field, principle
investigator professor Jeffrey G. Ojemann from the University of Washington School of Medicine
in Seattle as well as Prof. Steven C. Cramer from the University of
California Los Angeles and their respective teams. With funding by the
US-American National Institutes of Health (NIH)2, the consortium aims at
obtaining initial first-in-human safety data and at the development and
evaluation of novel therapeutical rehabilitation approaches for upper
limb impairment in stroke patients via direct cortical electrical
stimulation delivered by the Brain Interchange System. Enrollment of
patients and the first implantation of the neural interfacing system are
schedule for the third quarter of 2024.
Assistant Professor Dr. Jeffrey Herron from University of Washington
is a co-investigator of the NIH funded study and the engineering lead on
the project. He explains the importance of the FDA approval for the
upcoming IDE study: “In the United States, all studies involving devices
which pose a significant risk require the approval by both the FDA and
institutional review board prior to participant recruitment. The FDA
review of Investigational Device Exemptions for significant risk device
studies is a rigorous process involving the submission of extensive
documentation by both UW, the research site, and CorTec, the device
manufacturer. The FDA makes their determination for a specific study
based upon the details of the study protocol, an extensive hazard
analysis, and an in-depth evaluation of the manufacturer’s documents
pertaining to the design and testing of the device to ensure that it
will perform as needed for the study. The fact that UW and CorTec have
now received this IDE approval from FDA is an absolutely critical
milestone demonstrating a readiness to proceed towards participant
recruitment for this study, pending local UW IRB approval.”
CorTec’s CEO, Dr. Oliver Baertl adds, “We are very excited about the
feedback from the FDA! This was an important first step for CorTec to
support clinical research in the fast growing neuromodulation and Brain
Computer Interface space. We foresee many more studies with our device.
The first in human use will be the next milestone for our technology and
our company.”
Disclaimer: The research reported in this publication is supported by
the National Institute Of Neurological Disorders And Stroke of the
National Institutes of Health under Award Number UH3NS121565. The
content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not
necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of
Health.
Does your competent? stroke hospital have procedures in place to bring in new stroke interventions? NO? So you don't have a functioning stroke hospital? You'll have to direct the ambulance to a more successful place.
Route 92 Medical has today announced receipt of US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k) clearance for the FreeClimb 54
reperfusion system, comprised of the FreeClimb 54 aspiration catheter paired with a Tenzing 5 delivery catheter.
This new system is part of a growing portfolio of neurovascular
devices from Route 92, designed to work harmoniously as a complete
endovascular thrombectomy solution to address a broad range of
neurovascular interventions, according to a company press release.
“Route 92 Medical works to provide innovative endovascular
thrombectomy solutions to clinicians, helping them maximise their
opportunity to restore blood flow to the brain on their first attempt,”
said Tony Chou, chief executive officer of Route 92. “The FreeClimb 54
reperfusion system is an essential addition to our product portfolio,
enabling clinicians to use our products to address a wider range of
patient needs.”
The FreeClimb 54 system can telescope through the company’s
complementary products, allowing physicians to rapidly, predictably
reach and remove stroke-causing clots during endovascular thrombectomy
procedures. Route 92’s recent press release also notes that FreeClimb
54’s robust tip and shaft design facilitates use for multiple passes,
and compatibility with other technologies. Additionally, the system may
be used to remove distal clots when first-line therapies fail to
completely remove the clot.
“The launch of the FreeClimb 54 reperfusion system continues Route 92
Medical’s progressive and complete approach to stroke care,” stated
Peter Pema (Riverside Methodist Hospital, Columbus, USA). “This system
combines the unparalleled effectiveness and safety of their Tenzing
delivery system with an aspiration catheter that can reach far into the
cerebral circulation beyond the proximal branch vessels. Thus, the size
of the FreeClimb 54 system offers clear advantages to clinicians looking
to achieve rapid, safe recanalisation of vessels on the first attempt.”
“The FreeClimb 54 system is a gamechanger,” added Ronald Budzik
(Riverside Methodist Hospital, Columbus, USA). “It is a simple system
capable of getting a larger bore aspiration catheter to distal anatomy,
especially around tighter turns.”
