BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endovascular navigation under MR imaging guidance can be facilitated by a catheter with steerable microcoils on the tip. Not only do microcoils create visible artifacts allowing catheter tracking, but also they create a small magnetic moment permitting remote-controlled catheter tip deflection. A side product of catheter tip electrical currents, however, is the heat that might damage blood vessels. We sought to determine the upper boundary of electrical currents safely usable at 1.5T in a coil-tipped microcatheter system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Alumina tubes with solenoid copper coils were attached to neurovascular microcatheters with heat shrink-wrap. Catheters were tested in carotid arteries of 8 pigs. The catheters were advanced under x-ray fluoroscopy and MR imaging. Currents from 0 mA to 700 mA were applied to test heating and potential vascular damage. Postmortem histologic analysis was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Several heat-mitigation strategies demonstrated negligible vascular damage compared with control arteries. Coil currents ≤300 mA resulted in no damage (0/58 samples) compared with 9 (25%) of 36 samples for > 300-mA activations (P = .0001). Tip coil activation ≤1 minute and a proximal carotid guide catheter saline drip > 2 mL/minute also had a nonsignificantly lower likelihood of vascular damage. For catheter tip coil activations ≤300 mA for ≤1 minute in normal carotid flow, 0 of 43 samples had tissue damage. CONCLUSIONS: Activations of copper coils at the tip of microcatheters at low currents in 1.5T MR scanners can be achieved without significant damage to blood vessel walls in a controlled experimental setting. Further optimization of catheter design and procedure protocols is necessary for safe remote control magnetic catheter guidance.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endovascular navigation under MR imaging guidance can be facilitated by a catheter with steerable microcoils on the tip. Not only do microcoils create visible artifacts allowing catheter tracking, but also they create a small magnetic moment permitting remote-controlled catheter tip deflection. A side product of catheter tip electrical currents, however, is the heat that might damage blood vessels. We sought to determine the upper boundary of electrical currents safely usable at 1.5T in a coil-tipped microcatheter system. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Alumina tubes with solenoid copper coils were attached to neurovascular microcatheters with heat shrink-wrap. Catheters were tested in carotid arteries of 8 pigs. The catheters were advanced under x-ray fluoroscopy and MR imaging. Currents from 0 mA to 700 mA were applied to test heating and potential vascular damage. Postmortem histologic analysis was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Several heat-mitigation strategies demonstrated negligible vascular damage compared with control arteries. Coil currents ≤300 mA resulted in no damage (0/58 samples) compared with 9 (25%) of 36 samples for > 300-mA activations (P = .0001). Tip coil activation ≤1 minute and a proximal carotid guide catheter saline drip > 2 mL/minute also had a nonsignificantly lower likelihood of vascular damage. For catheter tip coil activations ≤300 mA for ≤1 minute in normal carotid flow, 0 of 43 samples had tissue damage. CONCLUSIONS: Activations of copper coils at the tip of microcatheters at low currents in 1.5T MR scanners can be achieved without significant damage to blood vessel walls in a controlled experimental setting. Further optimization of catheter design and procedure protocols is necessary for safe remote control magnetic catheter guidance.
Authors: Fabio Settecase; Steven W Hetts; Alastair J Martin; Timothy P L Roberts; Anthony F Bernhardt; Lee Evans; Vincent Malba; Maythem Saeed; Ronald L Arenson; Walter Kucharzyk; Mark W Wilson Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-11-13 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Anthony Bernhardt; Mark W Wilson; Fabio Settecase; Leland Evans; Vincent Malba; Alastair J Martin; Maythem Saeed; Timothy P L Roberts; Ronald L Arenson; Steven W Hetts Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-11-13 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Stefan Müller-Hülsbeck; Paul Stolzmann; Carsten Liess; Jürgen Hedderich; Friedrich Paulsen; Thomas Jahnke; Martin Heller Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Fabio Settecase; Marshall S Sussman; Mark W Wilson; Steven Hetts; Ronald L Arenson; Vincent Malba; Anthony F Bernhardt; Walter Kucharczyk; Timothy P L Roberts Journal: Med Phys Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: J Kalef-Ezra; L Michalis; G Bozios; P Tsekeris; C S Katsouras; K Naka; C Pappas; D A Sideris Journal: Cardiovasc Radiat Med Date: 2003 Oct-Dec
Authors: Mark W Wilson; Alastair B Martin; Prasheel Lillaney; Aaron D Losey; Erin J Yee; Anthony Bernhardt; Vincent Malba; Lee Evans; Ryan Sincic; Maythem Saeed; Ronald L Arenson; Steven W Hetts Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Prasheel Lillaney; Curtis Caton; Alastair J Martin; Aaron D Losey; Leland Evans; Maythem Saeed; Daniel L Cooke; Mark W Wilson; Steven W Hetts Journal: Med Phys Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Prasheel V Lillaney; Jeffrey K Yang; Aaron D Losey; Alastair J Martin; Daniel L Cooke; Bradford R H Thorne; David C Barry; Andrew Chu; Carol Stillson; Loi Do; Ronald L Arenson; Maythem Saeed; Mark W Wilson; Steven W Hetts Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-03-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hao Su; Ka-Wai Kwok; Kevin Cleary; Iulian Iordachita; M Cenk Cavusoglu; Jaydev P Desai; Gregory S Fischer Journal: Proc IEEE Inst Electr Electron Eng Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 14.910
Authors: Aaron D Losey; Prasheel Lillaney; Alastair J Martin; Daniel L Cooke; Mark W Wilson; Bradford R H Thorne; Ryan S Sincic; Ronald L Arenson; Maythem Saeed; Steven W Hetts Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 11.105