This protocol provides a detailed description of inducing cerebral air emboli in rats. It compares direct injection into the common carotid artery and introduction through the external carotid artery. It provides a technical description of the air bubble generator, the effect of different air volumes, and procedural challenges.
We present a methodological approach for preclinical research of cerebral arterial gas embolism (CAGE), a condition characterized by gas bubbles within the cerebral circulation causing multifocal ischemia. The current work describes two surgical methods to induce CAGE in the rat: one with injection of air via the external carotid artery (ECA), thereby sacrificing the vessel, and one via direct injection into the common carotid artery (CCA). Male Wistar rats were used and divided into groups (n=5) to undergo either the ECA- or CCA-entry method with injection of different air emboli volumes (6000, 7000 and 8000 nL) or sham surgery. A custom-made bubble generator was used to produce gas emboli with consistent size, and open-source software was developed for real-time bubble analysis. The comparison between the two methods revealed the CCA approach to be superior in terms of consistent bubble production within the bubble generator, reduced embolization time and fewer complications.
Cerebral arterial gas embolism (CAGE) is characterized by the lodging of gas bubbles within the cerebral arterial circulation, leading to a spectrum of neurological impairments. This condition is predominantly known as a complication in diving, where overexpansion of the lungs during ascent results in barotrauma and air entry into the pulmonary veins, which then flow to the cerebral arteries1. In addition to this well-known occurrence in diving, medical professionals are increasingly recognizing CAGE as a complication of invasive medical procedures. Iatrogenic air embolism can occur during the placement, handling, or removal of central venous catheters and chest drains, as well as throughout the course of open and endovascular procedures, including heart valve interventions, thoracic endovascular aortic repairs and endovascular thrombectomy in ischemic stroke2,3. Despite its clinical significance, the research on CAGE, particularly using animal models, remains sparse and fragmented4.
Since the pioneering study by Rosengren et al. in 1977 with rats, animal models for CAGE have undergone significant refinement5. The approach employed by Rosengren involved cannulation of the common carotid artery (CCA) to introduce a total volume of 10 µL of air. This technique was not without limitations, including altered hemodynamics due to arterial ligation and the uncontrolled size and excessive volume of the air embolus6. Furlow's method, described in 1982, improved the precision of air embolization by advancing a catheter into the internal carotid artery and administering a total air volume of 5 µL. However, although its importance was recognized early, the concept of uniform bubble size was only implemented decades later. Gerriets et al. were able to produce a consistent number of bubbles with a uniform diameter, initially 160 µm, later reduced to 45 µm7,8. The surgical method used here required sacrificing the external carotid artery (ECA). Recently, Schaefer et al. introduced a less invasive method by inserting a microcatheter into the CCA through the femoral artery, more accurately mimicking air embolism scenarios seen during endovascular procedures9. Their method had the limitation of not ligating the arterial branches of the CCA (for example, ECA and pterygopalatine artery (PPA)), thereby allowing bubbles to not only flow to the desired cerebral arteries but also to non-cerebral territories. This may result in inconsistent cerebral ischemic damage, complicating the reproducibility of experiments.
Despite the advancements in preclinical CAGE models, challenges remain in replicating bubble generation techniques, standardizing surgical methods, and acquiring consistent cerebral lesions. The current study introduces both a conventional surgical approach that requires sacrificing the ECA and an alternative method in which air bubbles are injected directly into the CCA. We report detailed procedures, challenges, and open-source software for real-time bubble analysis. We also include the technical details needed to build a bubble generator.
All procedures involving animals were conducted in accordance with the Guide for Use and Care of Laboratory Animals. We obtained full approval from the Central Committee on Animal Experiments of The Netherlands (AVD11800202114839). Male Wistar rats with a weight range of 300 – 350 g were used. Animals were housed in pairs with food and water ad libitum and 12 h light-dark cycles. Upon arrival, animals underwent a 7-day acclimatization period before any experimental procedure was initiated.
NOTE: We used two surgical methods, the ECA-entry method and the CCA-entry method. For both techniques, rats were randomized into Vehicle or 8000 nL CAGE groups using a statistical analysis tool. Vehicle treatment included saline injection only; CAGE treatment used air bubbles in saline to a volume of 8000 nL, with each bubble having a target diameter of 160 µm. After the completion of this series, further refinement of the model with 6000 nL and 7000 nL (both with 160 µm bubble diameter) was done only through the CCA-entry method. In case of procedural failure, replacement rats were added to obtain final group sizes of n=5.
1. Air bubble generator
NOTE: The air bubble generator (Figure 1, Figure 2, and Supplementary Figure 1A-C) consists of several custom-made components that generate and detect equally sized-gas bubbles.
Figure 1: Overview of the air bubble generator. The bubble generator comprises a supporting frame (1.1) and a pneumatic regulator for airflow management (1.2). It includes a 3D-printed main body housing a glass capillary (1.3), linked to an objective and high-speed camera (1.4). See Supplementary Figure 1A-C for more images. Numbers correspond with the methodological steps in the main text. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: Schematic overview of the bubble generator body. A detailed blueprint of the bubble generator body, including dimensions and annotations for each component. Numbers correspond with the methodological steps in the main text. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
2. Gas bubble detection and analysis
NOTE: The Python code (Supplementary File 1) is designed to track and calculate the number, diameter, and volume of each gas bubble in real time. During the production of gas bubbles, the code processes each detected bubble as it moves through the field of view. This data is continuously displayed as the bubble count, cumulative volume of air, average bubble diameter, and total duration of the recording. After every recording, data is exported into a spreadsheet and .mp4 video file.
3. CAGE surgery
Figure 3: Surgery methods. Illustrations of the two surgical approaches, (A) the ECA-entry method and (B) the CCA-entry method. Abbreviations: CCA = common carotid artery; ECA = external carotid artery; ICA = internal carotid artery; OA = occipital artery; PPA = pterygopalatine; VN = vagus nerve. Figure made with BioRender.com. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
4. Follow-up
Neurological outcome
Table 1 gives an overview of all inclusions and exclusions across the different experimental groups. None of the sham-operated rats showed any CND. In the ECA-CAGE group (8000 nL), two out of five rats did not exhibit CND, while the three remaining rats experienced CND, of which two died within 24 h. In the CCA-CAGE group (8000 nL) all animals showed CND, three of five did not survive up to 48 h. In the CCA-CAGE groups with lower volumes of air, all rats survived postoperatively. All five rats in the 7000 nL group demonstrated CND, whereas in the 6000 nL group, two out of five rats showed CND.
ECA | CCA | |||||||
sham | 8000 nL | sham | 8000 nL | 7000 nL | 6000 nL | |||
Included | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | ||
Exhibited clinical neurological deficits | 0 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 2 | ||
Mortality < 24 h | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | ||
Mortality 24-48 h | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||
Excluded total | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | ||
Excluded due to bleeding complication | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Excluded due to thrombotic complication | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
Intraoperative death due to vagal nerve compression | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Table 1: Animal group inclusions and exclusion. The number of rats in each group, inclusions and exclusions, deaths, and survival with clinical neurological deficits.
MRI
Figure 4 shows a representative T2-weighted image of a rat that received 7000 nL air bubbles through the CCA-entry method, showing cortical hyperintensities. Similar abnormalities were seen in all animals in the CCA-CAGE group that received 7000 or 8000 nL, and to a lesser extent in the 6000 nL group and the ECA-CAGE group. Notably, while none of the animals in the sham groups showed any CND, one ECA-sham rat exhibited an area of hyperintensity on MRI; in the CCA-sham group, no rats displayed abnormalities on MRI.
Figure 4: MRI example images. Representative T2-weighted MRI images (3 days post CAGE surgery) showing cortical hyperintensities due to CAGE in a rat of the CCA-CAGE 7000 nL group. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Histology
Figure 5 shows a representative H&E-stained brain section of the 7000 nL CCA-CAGE rat from Figure 4, demonstrating cortical ischemic brain damage with neuronal cell loss and reactive gliosis, including reactive astrogliosis and microglial activation.
Figure 5: Post-mortem histology. Representative H&E staining of the rat from Figure 4 showing cortical tissue of the contra-lesional side with (A) intact neurons and (B) the ipsi-lesional side with ischemic cortical tissue with neuronal cell loss and reactive gliosis (arrows). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Technical challenges
Due to technical challenges, the ECA-entry method had a substantially lower success rate compared to the CCA-entry method (Table 1). This predominantly stemmed from the short catheter length required in the ECA-entry method, which frequently resulted in catheter dislocation and bleeding. Additionally, the ECA-entry method also resulted in an approximately 20 min longer surgery time, as well as a larger variation in bubble diameter.
Supplementary Figure 1: Details of the air bubble generator. (A) Images of the body of the bubble generator and the capillary puller highlight their assembly and functional aspects. (B) Lateral view of the bubble generator, showing its design and structural features from a side perspective. (C) Frontal view of the bubble generator, illustrating the key frontal aspects and features. Please click here to download this File.
Supplementary Figure 2: Steps for running the software. This file provides a detailed guide on the procedures and steps to be followed for effectively running and utilizing the software associated with the air bubble generator. Please click here to download this File.
Supplementary File 1: Python code. Code consists of the two scripts (A and B) that should be saved within the same folder. Please click here to download this File.
We have described how to introduce air emboli in the rat cerebral arteries using two methods and have shown that introduction through a needle inserted in the CCA has multiple advantages over a method that involves embolization through a catheter into the ECA. Specifically, we observed fewer complications with the CCA-entry method, as well as a more consistent bubble diameter and reduced surgical time. The CCA-entry method results in dose-dependent CND, and abnormalities on MRI indicative of cerebral infarction as confirmed with histology.
The initial choice of the ECA-entry method was inspired by Gerriets et al.7. However, we identified several difficulties with this approach, including substantial variations in bubble size and a higher surgical complication rate compared to the CCA-entry method. A primary source of these complications is related to the catheter length. In our model, using a short catheter (125 mm) helped maintain the stability of the bubbles because the longer the catheter, the higher the probability that bubbles merge while flowing through the catheter9. However, in the ECA-entry method, a longer catheter facilitates easier placement and leverage for movement. Using a short catheter in the ECA-entry method results in frequent dislocation and deterioration of the ECA stump due to excessive manipulation.
A second difficulty encountered in the ECA-entry method regarded the creation of consistently sized bubbles (Figure 6). In the ECA-entry method, the flow of saline through the catheter has to be temporarily halted while the catheter is inserted into the ECA. When the arterial flow is restored and the embolization can start, the catheter is suddenly subjected to the blood pressure of the rat. As a result, this leads to blood retrogradely entering the catheter and bubble generator. The effect of the fluctuating blood pressure on the pressure inside the bubble generator leads to a higher variation in bubble size, sometimes leading to cylindrical-shaped bubbles filling up the channel (Figure 6B). This can be avoided by increasing the pressure within the system before positioning the catheter in the ECA. This is best done by a second person for precise timing. Furthermore, since this method is more time-consuming, it leads to a larger amount of saline being infused into the rat than the CCA-entry method. In the CCA-entry method, saline is continuously flowing through the catheter, and the needle is inserted in the direction of the blood flow through the CCA, thereby solving the pressure gradient issue described above. This results in the absence of backflow into the catheter and a more uniform bubble size.
Figure 6: Example recording and analysis of bubble production. Images display screen grabs showing the real-time analysis of the total number of bubbles, total volume, and average diameter in the measurement area (green, upper left corner). The measurement area is highlighted between the orange lines on the right. The bubble diameter and volume are calculated based on the horizontal diameter. Images include the formation of (A) successfully generated air bubbles and (B) unsuccessfully generated cylindrical bubbles. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Despite the CCA-entry method being a favorite, we still encountered various technical difficulties. Firstly, preparation of the PPA is challenging, since accidental compression of the vagus nerve can result in depression of breathing and subsequent death of the animal12. To reduce this risk, one should tilt the rat slightly sideways and approach the PPA from the cranial direction. In addition, due to the challenging anatomy of the ICA and PPA bifurcation, there is a risk of vascular damage and uncontrollable bleeding. This can only be circumvented by improving surgical skills. These challenges highlight that mastering the CAGE model in rats is complex and requires significant practice and precision13.
The proposed technical setup of the air bubble generator has its limitations, particularly related to the custom-made glass capillaries, because of their fragility. The tubing that connects the pneumatic regulator to the capillary is prone to breakage when adjusting the three-way valve for pressure release after embolization. Furthermore, replacing a capillary requires destroying the existing capillary due to the heat-shrink rubber being permanently attached to it. Additionally, each capillary has unique bubble characteristics due to minor differences in tip diameter and shape. Lastly, the manual operation of the bubble generation via the pneumatic regulator required significant experience. Inexperienced handling can result in the production of excessively large bubbles. Automated pressure regulation with a feedback loop from the Python code could enhance automated precision in future studies.
Our thorough documentation, encompassing both the technical specification of the bubble generator, a detailed surgical protocol, and providing the software, makes an important contribution to this field of research. Our CCA technique ensures minimal disruption to physiological cerebral perfusion, by maintaining CCA flow throughout the procedure and abolishing the need to sacrifice the ECA. Our study provides a reliable and reproducible experimental model to investigate CAGE and its potential treatments.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
This research was funded by the Netherlands Military Healthcare Insurance Foundation (Stichting Ziektekosten Verzekering Krijgsmacht) under grant number 20-0232 and the Dutch Heart Foundation 2021 E. Dekker Grant (03-006-2021-T019 to IAM). We also thank Lindy Alles, Paul Bloemen, and Ed van Bavel for their outstanding assistance.
Aluminum Crossed Roller XYZ Stage Center Drive Metric Threads with Fine Pitch Screw | Optosigma | TAM-405CLFP | Part of frame (Step 1.1.) |
Basler Ace – acA2440-35um | Basler AG | 107208 | High speed camera (Step 1.4.) |
Bupivacaine 2.5 mg/ml | Aurobindo Pharma B.V. | RVG20949 | Medication perioperative (Step 3.8.3.) |
Buprenorfine 0.3 mg/ml | Indivior | 112515 | Medication perioperative (Step 3.2.1.) |
Custom glass chamber | Technoglas Lab. App. B.V. | – | Custom made (Step 1.3.1.) |
Duratears | Alcon | – | Artificial tears (Step 3.2.5.) |
Electric razor | Aesculap | GT416-VR | |
Electro-Pneumatic Regulator – ITV0010-3L | SMC | ITV0010-3L | Pneumatic regulator of bubble generator (Step 1.2.) |
GC100T-15 thin wall W/O filament 1.0mmOD | Multi Channel Systems | 300036 | Borosilicate glass capillaries (Step 1.5.) |
Graphpad Tool: www.graphpad.com/quickscalcs/randomize1/ | Dotmatics | – | Randomly assign subjects to treatment groups |
Heatshrink rubber | Pro-POWER | 1190988 | Holds capillary and pneumatic tubing in place (Step 1.2.) |
Isoflurane 1000 mg/g | Laboratorios Karizoo S.A. | 118938 | |
Laptop | Dell | – | 12th Gen Intel® Core™ i5-1235U 1.30 GHz, 16.0 GB ram, Windows 10 |
Light source station with two dual white LED and goosenecks | Euromex Microscopen B.V. | LE.5212 | Led light source (Step 1.4.) |
Micro forceps bent | Aesculap | BD329R | (Step 3.3.2.) |
Micro needle holder | Silber | GU1870 | For inserting needle in CCA (Step 3.7.3.) |
Micro scissors | HEBU medical | HB7384 | Vascular scissor (Step 3.6.3) |
Micro vascular clip | Biemer | FD562R | (Step 3.6.1.) |
Microlance 3 (21G, 27G and 30G) | BD Medical | 304000 | (Step 1.3.2.) |
Mosquito artery clamp | Aesculap | BH105R | (Step 3.4.3.) |
NexiusZoom | Euromex Microscopen B.V. | NZ.1903-B | Microscope for surgery (Step 3.3.) |
Narishige PB-7 | Narishige Group | – | Micropipette puller (Step 1.5.1.) |
Optomechanical mounts, adapter and post assemblies | Thor Labs | – | Various parts to hold the bubble generator body in static position (Step 1.1.) |
PE-10 tubing | Intramedic | 427401 | Catheter (Step 1.3.2.) |
Perfusor Space | B.Braun | 8713030 | Syringe pump (Step 1.6.1.) |
Plan Achromat Objective, 0.10 NA, 18.5 mm WD 4X | Olympus | RMS4X | Magnification lens (Step 1.4.) |
Python | Python Software Foundation | – | Version 3.11.2 (Step 2.2.1.) |
Pylon viewer | Basler AG | – | Version 7.4.0 (Step 2.1.1.) |
Rubber O-RING 1 x 1 mm silicone | Op den Velde Industrie B.V. | 99002887 | Prevents leakage of saline (Step 1.3.3.) |
Rubber O-RING 6 x 1 mm silicone | Op den Velde Industrie B.V. | 99002886 | Holds glass chamber in place (Figure 2.) |
Rodent Warmer X1 with Rat Heating Pad and Rectal Probe | Stoelting | 53800R | Heating pad (Step 3.1.2.) |
Skeleton Fine Forceps | Hoskins | 2710-B-2074 | (Step 3.3.2.) |
Wistar rats | Charles River Laboratory | – |
.