Comparing Super-Large-Bore and Large-Bore Catheters for Thrombectomy in Acute Ischemic Stroke

Background Contact aspiration remains a frontline approach for mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Early evidence correlates catheter size with procedural efficiency and clinical outcomes. Larger‐bore (LB) aspiration catheters may enhance clot ingestion, increase aspiration force, and facilitate faster and more complete recanalization. However, the transition from standard LB catheters (0.068‐0.072″) to super‐large‐bore (SLB, ≥0.080″) devices has raised questions regarding both safety and clinical benefit. Although the use of SLB catheters is increasing, comparative data on their performance versus LB catheters remain limited. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SLB compared with LB catheters including data from a large multicenter international registry. Methods We retrospectively analyzed patients with AIS due to LVO treated at 46 international stroke centers between January 2013 and June 2025. Among eligible patients, propensity score matching (PSM) at a 5:1 ratio was used to balance baseline characteristics between those treated with standard LB catheters and those treated with SLB catheters. Safety endpoints included intraprocedural complications, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH), distal embolization, and 90‐day mortality. Efficacy endpoints included functional independence at 90 days (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0‐2), successful recanalization (TICI ≥2b), first‐pass effect (TICI ≥2b on the first aspiration attempt), and procedural timing to TICI2b. Results A total of 3,100 patients were included (LB n=3,024; SLB n=67). After PSM (LB n=335; SLB n=67), safety outcomes were comparable between groups in terms of intraprocedural complications occurred (p=0.5), sICH (p>0.9), embolization to new territory (p=0.2), and 90‐day mortality (p>0.9). Efficacy outcomes were similarly consistent for functional independence (mRS 0‐2) (p>0.9), successful recanalization (p>0.9), first‐pass effect (p=0.5), and time to TICI ≥2b (27.6 vs. 24.5 minutes; p=0.9). These findings remained consistent in the subgroup with ICA and M1 occlusions, with no significant differences in safety (intraprocedural complications [p=0.4], sICH [p>0.9], embolization to new territory [p=0.6], or 90‐day mortality [p>0.9], nor in efficacy outcomes (functional independence at 90 days [p>0.9], successful recanalization [p=0.9], first‐pass effect [p=0.6], and time to TICI ≥2b [p=0.9]). Conclusion In this large multicenter analysis, the use of SLB aspiration catheters demonstrated comparable safety and efficacy to standard LB catheters for MT in AIS. Despite theoretical advantages in aspiration dynamics, SLB devices did not confer significant procedural or clinical benefit over LB catheters. These findings suggest that while SLB catheters are a feasible alternative, technical and clinical outcomes remain comparable to LB catheters. Further prospective studies are warranted to clarify potential clinical advantages.