Repair of the intracarotid artery in a mouse model after injection returns blood flow to the artery without negatively impacting the distribution of the injected material. Injection site repair facilitates subsequent injections through the same artery and prevents cerebral ischemia in mouse strains that lack a complete Circle of Willis.
Given recent advances in the delivery of novel antitumor therapeutics using endovascular selective intraarterial delivery methods in neuro-oncology, there is an urgent need to develop methods for intracarotid injections in mouse models, including methods to repair the carotid artery in mice after injection to allow for subsequent injections. We developed a method of intracarotid injection in a mouse model to deliver therapeutics into the internal carotid artery (ICA) with two alternative procedures.
During injection, the needle is inserted into the common carotid artery (CCA) after tying a suture around the external carotid artery (ECA) and injected therapeutics are delivered into the ICA. Following injection, the common carotid artery (CCA) can be ligated, which limits the number of intracarotid injections to one. The alternative procedure described in this article includes a modification where intracarotid artery injection is followed by injection site repair of the CCA, which restores blood flow within the CCA and avoids the complication of cerebral ischemia seen in some mouse models.
We also compared the delivery of bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stem cells (BM-hMSCs) to intracranial tumors when delivered through intracarotid injection with and without injection site repair following the injection. Delivery of BM-hMSCs does not differ significantly between the methods. Our results demonstrate that injection site repair of the CCA allows for repeat injections through the same artery and does not impair the delivery and distribution of injected material, thus providing a model with greater flexibility that more closely emulates intracarotid injection in humans.
Delivery of therapeutics to brain tumors is challenging due to the impermeability of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and the blood-tumor barrier (BTB). Direct intratumoral injection of therapeutics to circumvent the BBB may be achieved through the use of an Ommaya reservoir-catheter, low-flow microinfusion for convection-enhanced delivery, or local injection into the resection cavity or adjacent tissue1. However, the total volume of tumor tissue that is reached with these methods is limited2,3,4. Intraarterial injections have been used previously to deliver therapeutic agents to brain tumors with the aim of reaching more of the tumor5,6,7,8 and in recent times, the advances in both intraarterial delivery techniques and novel therapeutic agents have demonstrated the benefit of using this approach in the treatment of brain tumors7,9. These advances include the development of microcatheters, endovascular selective intraarterial (ESIA) delivery with advanced imaging, the use of osmotic agents to disrupt the BBB and BTB, and the development of targeted biological therapies. Therefore, to conduct preclinical testing of novel therapeutic agents that are administered via intraarterial injections, appropriate translational research models are necessary9,10.
In mouse models of brain tumors, therapeutic agents delivered intraperitoneally or intravenously (through the tail vein) pass through the liver or the heart and lungs, respectively, before being distributed to the entire body, including the brain. These first-pass effects may trap and remove the agent, or dilute the agent before reaching the brain, and may present dose-limiting toxicities prior to achieving a therapeutic dose in the brain. In contrast, intracarotid artery injection enables focused delivery to the brain prior to circulation by bypassing first-pass metabolism and limiting off-target delivery. While intracarotid injection in mice is more labor-intensive, the specificity and reproducibility of the technique result in reduced animal numbers to complete investigations11,12.
In general, in previously described methods of intracarotid artery injection in mice, the common carotid artery is ligated after injection and the circulation to the brain is provided by the contralateral carotid artery and posterior cerebral circulation via the circle of Willis11,12. This method has the inherent limitation of only allowing for a maximum of a single injection into the internal or external carotid artery. It is also critical that the mouse strains used in experiments where the carotid artery is ligated have a complete Circle of Willis to prevent cerebral ischemia due to the ligated artery13. Occlusion of the carotid artery has also been demonstrated to reduce cerebral blood flow and limit the distribution of injected particles14. Additionally, the occlusion of the carotid artery in mice following injection does not emulate intracarotid artery injection in human patients.
Our group has previously used intracarotid artery injections to successfully deliver mesenchymal stem cells to the brain10,15,16,17,18,19. In this article, we describe this method of intracarotid artery injection in detail and include a modification of the method that we developed, in which the injection site is repaired without occluding the artery, avoiding the limitations posed by post-injection carotid artery ligation. In this method, the common carotid artery (CCA) is prepared for injection by placing two sutures, one at either end of the intended injection site, and the lower suture (below the injection site) is tightened. The external carotid artery (ECA) is sealed using another suture. The needle is inserted into the CCA, and therapeutics are delivered into the internal carotid artery (ICA). Following this, the upper suture on the CCA is tightened to prevent backflow from the ICA. At this step, the injected CCA can either be ligated or repaired. If the CCA is to be ligated, sutures are tightened and left in place. If the injection site is repaired, sutures are removed after repair, and blood flow is restored. The details of these alternate procedures are provided below.
Intracarotid artery injections have been used increasingly in recent years to deliver therapeutics to brain tumors. Consequently, it is important to establish mouse models that mirror intracarotid artery injections in humans for research purposes. Previously, intracarotid artery injections in mice were performed with subsequent ligation of the artery, which limits the number of injections into the artery11,12. Additionally, occlusion of the carotid artery in mice can lead to cerebral ischemia in certain mouse strains that do not have a complete Circle of Willis13. We have developed a method to repair the injected carotid artery to overcome the limitations of prior methods. Repair of the injection site results in re-establishing blood flow to the injected artery, reducing the chance for cerebral ischemia, and facilitating subsequent injections into the same internal carotid artery.
Several steps, which are critical to success, require careful handling of surgical instruments or tissue, which include: insertion of the needle correctly into the lumen of the artery to avoid bleeding during intracarotid injection; careful dissection of connective tissue from the injection site prior to needle insertion; removal of all clumps and air bubbles in the syringe and needle prior to injection; and correct closing of the injection site to prevent closing of the lumen of the artery during the repair. To prevent bleeding after the needle is inserted, ensure that the needle is inserted into the artery past the bevel to form a seal around the needle shaft. To avoid a tear in the back wall of the artery, insert the needle at a shallow angle and subtly rock the syringe and needle back to keep the needle tip clear of the arterial back wall. If the injected solution leaks out during the injection, this suggests the needle was only inserted into the connective tissue surrounding the artery; careful dissection of the excess connective tissue from the injection site prior to injection will prevent this issue.
Regarding the choice of suture and closure technique, if the initial injection used a 33 G needle and made a clean insertion into the artery, one simple suture with 9-0 suture is sufficient to repair the artery. If a larger needle is used for injection (30 G etc) or any tearing occurs when inserting the needle (e.g., when the needle is off-center or the artery is moving because the mouse is breathing), this results in a slightly larger hole that needs to be repaired. Two simple sutures or a figure of eight is usually sufficient to repair this type of larger hole. The choice between these two techniques is based on the surgeon's preference in this situation. It is important to note that the repair technique has not been evaluated in situations where the injection site hole is significantly larger than in the situation mentioned above. If tearing at the injection site extends laterally (making a wider hole, greater than one-third of the circumference of the artery), repairing with this method may cause contraction of the artery and an increased risk of thrombosis.
If there is bleeding from the repaired injection site as the sutures are removed, it may be due to the stretching of the repaired site as normal circulation resumes; this may be rectified by gently covering the repaired injection site with sterile cotton and applying light pressure for 30 s. Alternatively, if there is bleeding from the repaired injection site with no visible blood flow and a proximal distended artery, it indicates that the suture needle passed through the back wall of the artery during repair. In this case, gently open the injection site edges during repair, pass the suture needle through the artery at a shallow angle, and visually confirm that the suture has not passed through the back wall before tying the suture knot.
With these measures in place, the method of injection site repair is precise and repeatable across cohorts of animals regardless of genetic background or age. In our experience, the success rate has been 100% with three different surgeons performing the procedure. With adequate experience and following the protocol provided carefully, we do not foresee any difficulty for other surgeons to perform this procedure. With practice, a skilled surgeon can complete the procedure in 15-20 min. If the experiment allows for it, the time per animal can also be reduced by leaving the upper and lower CCA sutures intact, forgoing repair of the injection site. However, as noted above, strain-specific differences in cerebral vascular anatomy have been documented and it is important to verify that the strain of the mouse used in the procedure can tolerate this prior to starting the experiment.
Since this is a surgical procedure, recovery of the mice must be taken into account. Stress tolerance and wound recovery are important considerations that will vary with different mouse strains. In addition, inflammation at the surgical site and scar tissue formation may increase recovery time after repeated surgeries. We have successfully performed multiple injections 7 days apart, but if more frequent injections are necessary, they should be evaluated carefully in the specific mouse strains to be used. Forceful handling and stress on the CCA (during isolation, tying and removing of sutures, and injection) can damage and weaken arterial walls leading to tearing during repeated injections. It is important to minimize the dissection of supporting connective tissue around the CCA and bifurcation and refrain from applying excessive tension to the artery.
Our results suggest that in this particular model, CCA ligation or CCA repair with restored circulation after injection do not differ in overall homing frequency or distribution of injected BM-hMSCs across intracranial tumors. While this may vary in different mouse strains, the use of injection site repair offers the advantage of returning blood flow to the injected artery, allowing for subsequent injections into the same artery, and importantly, resembling intracarotid artery injections in human patients. The choice of ligating versus repairing the injected artery is based on the type of experiment and the mouse model being used. If a second injection is needed, or if the mouse model does not have a complete Circle of Willis, injection site repair should be used. The ability to re-inject the CCA in mouse models can facilitate additional experimental manipulation. For example, to test multiple doses of a potential therapeutic given over time, repair of the injected artery is essential to perform subsequent injections. This method would also be useful in experiments involving the injection of combinations of therapeutic agents that need to be injected at different times. The increased flexibility in intracarotid injections afforded by repair of the injected artery improves the translational utility of mouse brain tumor models.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute (R01CA115729, R01CA214749, and 1P50 CA127001) and by the generous philanthropic contributions to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Moon Shots Program™, The Broach Foundation for Brain Cancer Research, The Elias Family Fund for Brain Tumor Research, The Priscilla Hiley Cancer Research Fund, The Bauman Family Curefest Brain Cancer Research Fund, Chuanwei Lu Fund, The Sweet Family Brain Cancer Research Fund, The Ira Schneider Memorial Cancer Research Foundation, The Jim & Pam Harris Fund, The Gene Pennebaker Fund for Brain Cancer Research, the Sorenson Fund for Brain Tumor Research, the Brian McCulloch Memorial Fund, the TLC Foundation from the Heart and the Mary Harris Pappas Endowed Fund for Glioblastoma Research, all to F.F.L.
1 mL syringes (low dead space) | Air-tite Products Co. | A1 | |
26 G; 1/2" needle | Air-tite Products Co. | N2612 | |
33 G; 1/2" needle | JBP, Air-tite Products Co. | JBP3313B | |
3 cm Petri dish | Falcon, Fisher Scientific | 08-772A | |
3M durapore surgical tape | Fisher Scientific | 19-071-152 | |
6-0 suture thread | Fine Science Tools | 18020-60 | |
70% Ethanol | Fisher Scientific | 04-355-122 | |
9-0 microsurgical suture with needle | Fine Science Tools | 12052-09 | |
Analgesic for major surgery | |||
Artificial tears/ophthalmic ointment | Covetrus | 8897 | |
Bead Sterilizer | Fisher Scientific | 14-955-341 | |
Betadine/Chlorhexidine | McKesson, Fisher Scientific | NC1696484 | |
Blunt hook retractor | Fine Science Tools | 17022-13 | |
Dissecting microscope | Zeiss Microscopy, LLC | 491903-0010-000 | |
Electric heating pad | Insource, Fisher Scientific | NC0667724 | |
Extra narrow scissors | Fine Science Tools | 14088-10 | |
Fine forceps – Dumont #5 forceps with micro-blunted tips | Fine Science Tools | 11253-20 | |
Fine forceps – Dumont #5/45 angled tip forceps with micro-blunted tips | Fine Science Tools | 11253-25 | |
Isoflurane vaporizer (or Ketamine/Xylazine cocktail) | Kent Scientific | VetFlo-1231 | |
Light source | Laxco, Fisher Scientific | AMPSILED21 | |
Mouse anesthesia nose cone | Braintree Scientific, Inc | XENO- M | |
Needle driver | Fine Science Tools | 12002-12 | |
Sterile cotton swabs | Texwipe, Fisher Scientific | 18-366-472 | |
Sterile gauze pads | Covidien, Fisher Scientific | 22-037-907 | |
Sterile saline (0.9%) | KD Medical, Fisher Scientific | 50-103-1363 | |
Sterile surgical drapes | Fisher Scientific | 50-129-6666 | |
Sterile surgical/downdraft table | |||
Sterile suture pack (any suitable diameter for mouse wound closure) | Ethicon, Fisher Scientific | 50-209-2811 | |
Surgical tools | |||
Vinyl lab tape | Fisher Scientific | 15-901 |
.