| Literature DB >> 35047955 |
Kayla Prezelski1,2,3, Megan Keiser4, Joel M Stein5, Timothy H Lucas2,6, Beverly Davidson4,7, Pedro Gonzalez-Alegre4,8, Flavia Vitale1,2,3,8,9.
Abstract
Convection enhanced delivery (CED) allows direct intracranial administration of neuro-therapeutics. Success of CED relies on specific targeting and broad volume distributions (VD). However, to prevent off-target delivery and tissue damage, CED is typically conducted with small cannulas and at low flow rates, which critically limit the maximum achievable VD. Furthermore, in applications such as gene therapy requiring injections of large fluid volumes into broad subcortical regions, low flow rates translate into long infusion times and multiple surgical trajectories. The cannula design is a major limiting factor in achieving broad VD, while minimizing infusion time and backflow. Here we present and validate a novel multi-point cannula specifically designed to optimize distribution and delivery time in MR-guided intracranial CED of gene-based therapeutics. First, we evaluated the compatibility of our cannula with MRI and common viral vectors for gene therapy. Then, we conducted CED tests in agarose brain phantoms and benchmarked the results against single-needle delivery. 3T MRI in brain phantoms revealed minimal susceptibility-induced artifacts, comparable to the device dimensions. Benchtop CED of adeno-associated virus demonstrated no viral loss or inactivation. CED in agarose brain phantoms at 3, 6, and 9 μL/min showed >3x increase in volume distribution and 60% time reduction compared to single-needle delivery. This study confirms the validity of a multi-point delivery approach for improving infusate distribution at clinically-compatible timescales and supports the feasibility of our novel cannula design for advancing safety and efficacy of MR-guided CED to the central nervous system.Entities:
Keywords: convection enhanced delivery; delivery cannula; gene therapy and therapeutic delivery; intraparenchymal delivery; microcannula
Year: 2021 PMID: 35047955 PMCID: PMC8757778 DOI: 10.3389/fmedt.2021.725844
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med Technol ISSN: 2673-3129
Figure 1MINT device design and dimensions. (A,B) Overview of the dimensions of the MINT catheter showing (A) (top) retracted and (bottom) ejected positions, and (B) ejected microcannula in (left) intermediately extended Position 1 and (right) fully extended Position 2. (C–E) Overview of the dimensions of the three actuated microcannulas including (C) details of the shaft dimensions, (D) the 3 infusion port dimensions (tapered end not shown), and (E) transverse section of the shaft with the embedded microcannulas in the retracted positions.
Figure 2(A) Schematics of the experimental setup for phantom CED tests. (B) Photograph of the MINT device inserted in the SmartFrame trajectory guidance stereotactic system (MRI Interventions Inc., Irvine CA), with the custom-designed side support. (C) Photograph of the MINT device inserted in the agarose brain phantom through the stereotactic frame at the end of the CED of 450 μL of trypan blue dye.
Figure 33T MRI of the MINT device in an agarose brain phantom. Top: two consecutive slices in the sagittal plane showing the shaft and the microcannula extended in Position 1 (intermediate extension). Bottom: transverse plane images of the (left) shaft and (right) microcannulas (Slice thickness: 1.3 mm).
Figure 4AAV compatibility tests. (A) AAV concentration before and after CED through MINT at 3, 5, and 10 μL/min. D1, D2, and D3 denote 1:1000, 1:5000, and 1:25000 AAV dilutions, respectively (*p < 0.05 compared to initial titer by Sidak post-hoc multiple comparisons analysis). (B) Change in AAV concentration after CED through MINT. Each point represents the average of n = 3 repeats in each trial. Horizontal line shows mean, error bar is the standard deviation.
Figure 5Snapshots of the volume distribution VD during CED injections at 3 μL/min from each microcannula (total flow rate = 9 μL/min).
Figure 6(A) Average volume distribution over time and (B) average distribution ratio with the MINT devices at varying flow rates. The green and yellow horizontal lines provide a reference to the single-needle CED from the central microcannula at 3 and 5 μL/min, respectively (data from Supplementary Figure 3) and represent the final VD/Vi at Vi = 450 μL. Error bars represent ± S.D. from n = 3 trials.
Figure 7(A) Average distribution ratio at Vi = 450 μL for MINT at 9 μL/min total flow rate (i.e., 3 μL/min per cannula) vs. single-needle CED at 3 μL/min flow rate. (B) Infusion duration to reach Vi = 450 uL for MINT at 9 μL/min total flow rate (i.e., 3 μL/min per cannula) vs. single-needle CED at 3 μL/min flow rate. Error bars represent ± S.D. from n = 3 trials for multipoint at each flow rate condition and n = 4 trials for single-needle CED.
Comparison of VD for different single-needle and multi-point CED cannulas.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| VT Catheter ( | 6.6 | 3 μL/min | Single |
| SmartFlow Cather ( | 5.4 ± 2.3 | 3 μL/min | Single |
| Arborizing Catheter ( | 14.9 | 7 μL/min | Multi (7) |
| MINT | 8.1 ± 1.6 | 3 μL/min | Multi (3) |