ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an established modality in clinical use but may be potentially underutilized to visualize and investigate biomaterials. As its use is totally contraindicated only for ferromagnetic devices, it was employed to visualize deployment, biofonctionality, healing, and biodurability of a commercially available endovascular device, namely the Medtronic-AVE AneuRx. The quality of the observations coupled with the absence of ionizing radiations are likely to make this technique an attractive imaging modality in the future. METHOD: The potential benefits of the MRI technique were investigated in a GE Vectra-MR 0.5T MRI for the Medtronic-AVE AneuRx endovascular prosthesis, under different conditions: undeployed i.e., inserted in the delivery cartridge as received from the manufacturer (step 1), deployed in a mock glass-aneurysm tube (step 2), and as a pathological explant harvested at the autopsy of a patient (step 3). The device was submitted to X-rays for examination in addition to MRI. At step 3, the device was further investigated with light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) together with X-ray diffraction. RESULTS: The device which was inserted and pleated in the delivery cartridge did not demonstrate any significant observation either in MRI or in X-rays. When it was deployed in the mock aneurysmal glass tube, light artefacts were associated with the T2 weighed FSE images around the Nitinol whereas X-rays gave images of indisputable interest. Similar results were noted using the explanted device. Very high contrasts were obtained with T1 whereas T2 images were almost defect free. The X-rays allowed to accurate imaging of the Nitinol skeleton but were poor to discriminate between the different tissues. Pathology observations using light microscopy were not really challenged, as the magnetic resonance imaging was performed using a 0.5T machine. DISCUSSION: The benefits of magnetic resonance imaging as a quality control technique to examine an endovascular device within its cartridge remains ill defined. Similarly, the role of conventional X-rays is unknown. The observation of devices fully deployed in a mock aneurysmal glass-tube under MRI are potentially useful but X-rays images allowed better definition. The MRI examination of the explanted device does permit observations related to the healing of the device that might be obtained in vivo and, thus offers new avenues for the follow-up of implanted devices. The pathological investigations brought additional informations about the tissues and the corrosion of the Nitinol. However, it is unlikely that MRI will permit detailed analysis of the biomaterials and in particular the corrosion process of the stents. CONCLUSION: These early observations of the follow-up of devices using MRI warrant further investigation. The absence of ionizing radiation with MRI makes this technique particularly attractive. As there is no emission of ionizing radiation associated with magnetic resonance, it is recommended that further investigation using this environment friendly technique for the follow-up of devices made of biomaterials that are MRI compatible.
