Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24533872›Full record

ArticleRadiology2014

Magnetically assisted remote-controlled endovascular catheter for interventional MR imaging: in vitro navigation at 1.5 T versus X-ray fluoroscopy.

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aaron D LoseyFrom the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, School of Medicine, University of California-San Francisco, 185 Berry St, Suite 350, Campus Box 0946, San Francisco, CA 94107-5705.
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
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Engaging University of California Stakeholders for Biorespository ResearchUL1TR000004 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI GRANDIS, JENNIFER RUBIN · 2012 to 2015
$78.0M
Endovascular Magnetic Catheter for Interventional MRIR01EB012031 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HETTS, STEVEN WILLIAM, MARTIN, ALASTAIR J · 2011 to 2021
$4.8M
Promoting Research Opportunities Fully--Prospective Academics Transforming HealthR25MD006832 · NIMHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ARONSON, LOUISE, FERNANDEZ, ALICIA · 2011 to 2015
$1.7M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000004NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB012031NIMHD NIH HHS R25 MD006832
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo 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

methodsThe 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.

resultsThe 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°.

conclusionIn 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.

Indexed as

Phantoms, ImagingCatheterizationCathetersEndovascular ProceduresEquipment DesignFluoroscopyMagnetic Resonance Imaging, InterventionalMagnetics

Identifiers

PMID24533872
PMCPMC4065602
OpenAlexW2152655650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.