Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26030659›Full record

ArticleRadiology2015

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.

Parham Moftakhar, Prasheel Lillaney, Aaron D Losey, Daniel L Cooke, Alastair J Martin, Bradford R H Thorne, Ronald L Arenson, Maythem Saeed, Mark W Wilson, Steven W Hetts

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Wireless MRI-Powered Reversible Orientation-Locking Capsule Robot.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Parham MoftakharFrom the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, L-352, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628.
Prasheel LillaneyFrom the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, L-352, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628.
Aaron D LoseyFrom the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, L-352, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628.
Daniel L CookeFrom the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, L-352, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628.
Alastair J MartinFrom the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, L-352, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628.
Bradford R H ThorneFrom the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, L-352, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628.
Ronald L ArensonFrom the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, L-352, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628.
Maythem SaeedFrom the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, L-352, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628.
Mark W WilsonFrom the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, L-352, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628.
Steven W HettsFrom the Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California-San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Ave, L-352, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628.
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Biomedical Imaging for Clinician ScientistsT32EB001631 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI THOMAS M LINK · 2005 to 2026
$5.6M
Endovascular Magnetic Catheter for Interventional MRIR01EB012031 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HETTS, STEVEN WILLIAM, MARTIN, ALASTAIR J · 2011 to 2021
$4.8M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB012031NIBIB NIH HHS R01EB012031NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB001631NIBIB NIH HHS T32EB001631
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo 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

methodsA 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionMultiplanar 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.

Indexed as

Catheterization, PeripheralDiffusionFeasibility StudiesFluoroscopyHumansMagnetic Resonance Imaging, InterventionalMagneticsPerfusionPhantoms, Imaging

Identifiers

PMID26030659
PMCPMC4671459
OpenAlexW1902710849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.