Document resource
Introduction The incorporation of cyclical aspiration patterns during mechanical thrombectomy for the treatment of AIS has emerged as an effective option to achieve favourable procedural outcomes.Aim of Study We aim to compare a range of pre-clinical efficacy and safety outcomes for standard vs cyclic aspiration.Method A systematic literature review of studies comparing cyclic vs standard aspiration published by April 2025 was conducted using the Nested Knowledge platform. The primary outcome was a comparison of FPR rates of cyclic vs standard aspiration. Other outcomes included comparisons of flow rates, vacuum pressures, clot ingestion, and ENT. Comparisons were performed using standard t-tests and 95% confidence intervals. Out of 429 articles screened, 8 studies were included in the analysis that compared standard aspiration (n=258) to cyclic aspiration (n=284) using pumps or manual syringe techniques.Results There was greater FPR rates with cyclic (84.7% CI [71.1, 98.3]) compared to standard aspiration (45.0% CI [3.2, 86.8]). Catheter flow rates were lower upon aspiration with cyclic (162.2 ml/min CI [122.6, 201.9]) vs standard aspiration (311.0 ml/min CI [302.2, 319.8]). Intraprocedural pump vacuum pressures were comparable with cyclic (22.4 Hg CI [10.8, 34.0]) and standard (24.6 Hg CI [21.0, 28.1]) aspiration. Cyclic had a greater clot ingestion rate (63.0% CI [40.0, 85.9]) compared to standard aspiration (29.0% CI [15.3, 42.8]). The ENT count was lower with cyclic (9.9 CI [-4.6, 24.4]) vs standard aspiration (20.5 [1.2, 39.9]).Conclusion Overall, these data indicate more favourable efficacy and safety outcomes with cyclic compared to standard aspiration in a pre-clinical setting.Conflict of Interest No