Figure 8.

Viability of carotid artery segments after convection and ultrarapid warming. (a) Viability was statistically unchanged after ultrarapid warming of VS55 (88.5 ± 5.5%) or DP6 (94.5 ± 3.5%) loaded arteries vs. convective VS55 controls while convectively warmed DP6 loaded arteries (59.5 ± 3.5%, p < 0.001***) proved to be ~ 35% less effective than VS55 convective controls (n = 2 independent experiments and n = 4 segments per test). (b) Annular model of artery warming with variable SAR and tissue thickness adopted from Manuchehrabadi et al.18 Here, a typical volumetric SAR generated from magnetic nanoparticles heating (nanowarming) is given as SAR = 2.5 W/cm³. This simulation suggests that 10× SAR, achievable by the ultrarapid method, can warm up to 4-mm-thick arteries if deployed in the lumen and around the artery. Some properties of conventionally used CPA are given in (c).