$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
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.