Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 15, 2026

Retrograde Perfusion and Filling of Mouse Coronary Vasculature as Preparation for Micro Computed Tomography Imaging
Published on: February 10, 2012
Artifacts of vena cava filters ex vivo on MR angiography
Minoru Honda1, Masao Obuchi, Hideharu Sugimoto
1Department of Radiology, Showa University Fujigaoka Hospital, Yokohama, Japan. honda@fujirad-showa-u.gr.jp
Abstract:
We evaluated magnetic susceptibility artifacts of nine types of vena cava filters in MR angiography (MRA) at 1.0T ex vivo in order to assess the filters' compatibility with MRA. Each filter (tulip filter, tulip MReye filter, stainless Greenfield filter, titanium Greenfield filter, TrapEase filter, Simon filter, LGM Vena-Tech filter, Antheor temporary filter, and Bird's nest filter) was inserted into an acrylic tube (20 or 25 mm in diameter, 15 or 30 cm in length). Gd-DTPA was poured into each tube at a concentration of 1/500 and each was placed in a water-filled container for imaging. We evaluated artifacts of the filters according to the following criteria: signal void beyond the tube, 3+; signal void within the tube but at more than one-half the diameter of the tube, 2+; and signal void within the tube but at less than one-half the diameter of the tube, 1+. We evaluated artifacts originating at the tip, intermediate portion, and distal end of the filters. We judged the artifacts as follows: tulip (3+, 3+, 3+); tulip MReye (2+, 1+, 1+); stainless Greenfield (2+, 1+, 2+); titanium Greenfield (1+, 1+, 1+); TrapEase (1+, 2+, 1+); Simon (2+, 2+, 1+); LGM (2+, 2+, 1+); Antheor (2+, 2+, 2+); and Bird's nest (3+, 3+, 3+). The numbers in parentheses refer to the degree of signal void at the tip, intermediate portion, and distal end of the filter, respectively. The tulip filter and Bird's nest filter made of 304 stainless steel caused extensive signal voids beyond the areas defined by the filters. The signal voids in the remaining seven filters were limited to within the tube. We concluded that seven of the nine filters were compatible with MRA ex vivo.
Insights
Magnetic susceptibility artifacts were evaluated for nine vena cava filters during MR angiography (MRA). Seven of the nine filters demonstrated compatibility with MRA, with signal voids limited to within the device.
Area of Science:
- Medical Imaging
- Biomaterials Science
Background:
- Vena cava filters are crucial for preventing pulmonary embolism.
- Assessing the compatibility of these devices with Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA) is essential for patient management.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the magnetic susceptibility artifacts of nine different vena cava filters.
- To determine the compatibility of these filters with 1.0T MRA ex vivo.
Main Methods:
- Nine types of vena cava filters were tested ex vivo.
- Filters were placed in acrylic tubes with Gd-DTPA and imaged using 1.0T MRA.
- Artifacts were quantified based on signal void extent and location.
Main Results:
- The Tulip filter and Bird's nest filter exhibited extensive signal voids beyond the device.
- Seven filters, including the Titanium Greenfield, TrapEase, and Simon filters, showed signal voids confined within the tube.
- Artifact severity varied across filter tips, intermediate portions, and distal ends.
Conclusions:
- Seven out of nine evaluated vena cava filters are compatible with MRA.
- The Titanium Greenfield, TrapEase, and Simon filters are suitable for MRA procedures.
- The Tulip and Bird's nest filters demonstrated significant artifacts, limiting their MRA compatibility.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Hemodialysis I: Introduction
Imaging Studies VII: Vascular Imaging
Venous Thrombosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies

