New-Generation Laser-lithographed Dual-Axis Magnetically Assisted Remote-controlled Endovascular Catheter for Interventional MR Imaging: In Vitro Multiplanar Navigation at 1.5 T and 3 T versus X-ray Fluoroscopy

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of multiplanar vascular navigation with a new magnetically assisted remote-controlled (MARC) catheter with real-time magnetic resonance (MR) imaging at 1.5 T and 3 T and to compare it with standard x-ray guidance in simulated endovascular catheterization procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 1.6-mm–diameter custom clinical-grade microcatheter prototype with lithographed double-saddle coils at the distal tip was deflected with real-time MR imaging. Two inexperienced operators and two experienced operators catheterized anteroposterior (celiac, superior mesenteric, and inferior mesenteric arteries) and mediolateral (renal arteries) branch vessels in a cryogel abdominal aortic phantom. This was repeated with conventional x-ray fluoroscopy by using clinical catheters and guidewires. Mean procedure times and percentage success data were analyzed with linear mixed-effects regression. RESULTS: The MARC catheter tip was visible at 1.5 T and 3 T. Among inexperienced operators, MARC MR imaging guidance was not statistically different from x-ray guidance at 1.5 T (67% successful vessel selection turns with MR imaging vs 76% with x-ray guidance, P = .157) and at 3 T (75% successful turns with MR imaging vs 76% with x-ray guidance, P = .869). Experienced operators were more successful in catheterizing vessels with x-ray guidance (98% success within 60 seconds) than with 1.5-T (65%, P < .001) or 3-T (75%) MR imaging. Among inexperienced operators, mean procedure time was nearly equivalent by using MR imaging (31 seconds) and x-ray guidance (34 seconds, P = .436). Among experienced operators, catheterization was faster with x-ray guidance (20 seconds) compared with 1.5-T MR imaging (42 seconds, P < .001), but MARC guidance improved at 3 T (31 seconds). MARC MR imaging guidance at 3 T was not significantly different from x-ray guidance for the celiac (P = .755), superior mesenteric (P = .358), and inferior mesenteric (P = .065) arteries. CONCLUSION: Multiplanar navigation with a new MARC catheter with real-time MR imaging at 1.5 T and 3 T is feasible and comparable to x-ray guidance for anteroposterior vessels at 3 T in a vascular phantom. (©) RSNA, 2015 Online supplemental material is available for this article

Accuracy of flat panel detector CT with integrated navigational software with and without MR fusion for single-pass needle placement

PurposeFluoroscopic systems in modern interventional suites have the ability to perform flat panel detector CT (FDCT) with navigational guidance. Fusion with MR allows navigational guidance towards FDCT occult targets. We aim to evaluate the accuracy of this system using single-pass needle placement in a deep brain stimulation (DBS) phantom.Materials and methodsMR was performed on a head phantom with DBS lead targets. The head phantom was placed into fixation and FDCT was performed. FDCT and MR datasets were automatically fused using the integrated guidance system (iGuide, Siemens). A DBS target was selected on the MR dataset. A 10 cm, 19 G needle was advanced by hand in a single pass using laser crosshair guidance. Radial error was visually assessed against measurement markers on the target and by a second FDCT. Ten needles were placed using CT-MR fusion and 10 needles were placed without MR fusion, with targeting based solely on FDCT and fusion steps repeated for every pass.ResultsMean radial error was 2.75±1.39 mm as defined by visual assessment to the centre of the DBS target and 2.80±1.43 mm as defined by FDCT to the centre of the selected target point. There were no statistically significant differences in error between MR fusion and non-MR guided series.ConclusionsSingle pass needle placement in a DBS phantom using FDCT guidance is associated with a radial error of approximately 2.5-3.0 mm at a depth of approximately 80 mm. This system could accurately target sub-centimetre intracranial lesions defined on MR

Endovascular Catheter for Magnetic Navigation under MR Imaging Guidance: Evaluation of Safety In Vivo at 1.5T

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

Magnetically Assisted Remote-controlled Endovascular Catheter for Interventional MR Imaging: In Vitro Navigation at 1.5 T versus X-ray Fluoroscopy

PURPOSE: To compare in vitro navigation of a magnetically assisted remote-controlled (MARC) catheter under real-time magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with manual navigation under MR imaging and standard x-ray guidance in endovascular catheterization procedures in an abdominal aortic phantom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2-mm-diameter custom clinical-grade microcatheter prototype with a solenoid coil at the distal tip was deflected with a foot pedal actuator used to deliver 300 mA of positive or negative current. Investigators navigated the catheter into branch vessels in a custom cryogel abdominal aortic phantom. This was repeated under MR imaging guidance without magnetic assistance and under conventional x-ray fluoroscopy. MR experiments were performed at 1.5 T by using a balanced steady-state free precession sequence. The mean procedure times and percentage success data were determined and analyzed with a linear mixed-effects regression analysis. RESULTS: The catheter was clearly visible under real-time MR imaging. One hundred ninety-two (80%) of 240 turns were successfully completed with magnetically assisted guidance versus 144 (60%) of 240 turns with nonassisted guidance (P < .001) and 119 (74%) of 160 turns with standard x-ray guidance (P = .028). Overall mean procedure time was shorter with magnetically assisted than with nonassisted guidance under MR imaging (37 seconds ± 6 [standard error of the mean] vs 55 seconds ± 3, P < .001), and time was comparable between magnetically assisted and standard x-ray guidance (37 seconds ± 6 vs 44 seconds ± 3, P = .045). When stratified by angle of branch vessel, magnetic assistance was faster than nonassisted MR guidance at turns of 45°, 60°, and 75°. CONCLUSION: In this study, a MARC catheter for endovascular navigation under real-time MR imaging guidance was developed and tested. For catheterization of branch vessels arising at large angles, magnetically assisted catheterization was faster than manual catheterization under MR imaging guidance and was comparable to standard x-ray guidance. © RSNA, 2014 Online supplemental material is available for this article

Intra-Arterial MR Perfusion Imaging of Meningiomas: Comparison to Digital Subtraction Angiography and Intravenous MR Perfusion Imaging.

To evaluate the ability of IA MR perfusion to characterize meningioma blood supply.Studies were performed in a suite comprised of an x-ray angiography unit and 1.5T MR scanner that permitted intraprocedural patient movement between the imaging modalities. Patients underwent intra-arterial (IA) and intravenous (IV) T2* dynamic susceptibility MR perfusion immediately prior to meningioma embolization. Regional tumor arterial supply was characterized by digital subtraction angiography and classified as external carotid artery (ECA) dural, internal carotid artery (ICA) dural, or pial. MR perfusion data regions of interest (ROIs) were analyzed in regions with different vascular supply to extract peak height, full-width at half-maximum (FWHM), relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF), relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV), and mean transit time (MTT). Linear mixed modeling was used to identify perfusion curve parameter differences for each ROI for IA and IV MR imaging techniques. IA vs. IV perfusion parameters were also directly compared for each ROI using linear mixed modeling.18 ROIs were analyzed in 12 patients. Arterial supply was identified as ECA dural (n = 11), ICA dural (n = 4), or pial (n = 3). FWHM, rCBV, and rCBF showed statistically significant differences between ROIs for IA MR perfusion. Peak Height and FWHM showed statistically significant differences between ROIs for IV MR perfusion. RCBV and MTT were significantly lower for IA perfusion in the Dural ECA compared to IV perfusion. Relative CBF in IA MR was found to be significantly higher in the Dural ICA region and MTT significantly lower compared to IV perfusion

Endovascular MR-guided Renal Embolization by Using a Magnetically Assisted Remote-controlled Catheter System

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of a magnetically assisted remote-controlled (MARC) catheter system under magnetic resonance (MR) imaging guidance for performing a simple endovascular procedure (ie, renal artery embolization) in vivo and to compare with x-ray guidance to determine the value of MR imaging guidance and the specific areas where the MARC system can be improved. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In concordance with the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee protocol, in vivo renal artery navigation and embolization were tested in three farm pigs (mean weight 43 kg ± 2 [standard deviation]) under real-time MR imaging at 1.5 T. The MARC catheter device was constructed by using an intramural copper-braided catheter connected to a laser-lithographed saddle coil at the distal tip. Interventionalists controlled an in-room cart that delivered electrical current to deflect the catheter in the MR imager. Contralateral kidneys were similarly embolized under x-ray guidance by using standard clinical catheters and guidewires. Changes in renal artery flow and perfusion were measured before and after embolization by using velocity-encoded and perfusion MR imaging. Catheter navigation times, renal parenchymal perfusion, and renal artery flow rates were measured for MR-guided and x-ray–guided embolization procedures and are presented as means ± standard deviation in this pilot study. RESULTS: Embolization was successful in all six kidneys under both x-ray and MR imaging guidance. Mean catheterization time with MR guidance was 93 seconds ± 56, compared with 60 seconds ± 22 for x-ray guidance. Mean changes in perfusion rates were 4.9 au/sec ± 0.8 versus 4.6 au/sec ± 0.6, and mean changes in renal flow rate were 2.1 mL/min/g ± 0.2 versus 1.9 mL/min/g ± 0.2 with MR imaging and x-ray guidance, respectively. CONCLUSION: The MARC catheter system is feasible for renal artery catheterization and embolization under real-time MR imaging in vivo, and quantitative physiologic measures under MR imaging guidance were similar to those measured under x-ray guidance, suggesting that the MARC catheter system could be used for endovascular procedures with interventional MR imaging. (©) RSNA, 201