Literature DB >> 11367791

Mechanisms of contrast agent destruction.

J E Chomas1, P Dayton, J Allen, K Morgan, K W Ferrara.   

Abstract

Various applications of contrast-assisted ultrasound, including blood vessel detection, perfusion estimation, and drug delivery, require controlled destruction of contrast agent microbubbles. The lifetime of a bubble depends on properties of the bubble shell, the gas core, and the acoustic waveform impinging on the bubble. Three mechanisms of microbubble destruction are considered: fragmentation, acoustically driven diffusion, and static diffusion. Fragmentation is responsible for rapid destruction of contrast agents on a time scale of microseconds. The primary characteristics of fragmentation are a very large expansion and subsequent contraction, resulting in instability of the bubble. Optical studies using a novel pulsed-laser optical system show the expansion and contraction of ultrasound contrast agent microbubbles with the ratio of maximum diameter to minimum diameter greater than 10. Fragmentation is dependent on the transmission pressure, occurring in over 55% of bubbles insonified with a peak negative transmission pressure of 2.4 MPa and in less than 10% of bubbles insonified with a peak negative transmission pressure of 0.8 MPa. The echo received from a bubble decorrelates significantly within two pulses when the bubble is fragmented, creating an opportunity for rapid detection of bubbles via a decorrelation-based analysis. Preliminary findings with a mouse tumor model verify the occurrence of fragmentation in vivo. A much slower mechanism of bubble destruction is diffusion, which is driven by both a concentration gradient between the concentration of gas in the bubble compared with the concentration of gas in the liquid, as well as convective effects of motion of the gas-liquid interface. The rate of diffusion increases during insonation, because of acoustically driven diffusion, producing changes in diameter on the time scale of the acoustic pulse length, thus, on the order of microseconds. Gas bubbles diffuse while they are not being insonified, termed static diffusion. An air bubble with initial diameter of 2 microns in water at 37 degrees C is predicted to fully dissolve within 25 ms. Clinical ultrasound contrast agents are often designed with a high molecular weight core in an attempt to decrease the diffusion rate. C3F8 and C4F10 gas bubbles of the same size are predicted to fully dissolve within 400 ms and 4000 ms, respectively. Optical experiments involving gas diffusion of a contrast agent support the theoretical predictions; however, shelled agents diffuse at a much slower rate without insonation, on the order of minutes to hours. Shell properties play a significant role in the rate of static diffusion by blocking the gas-liquid interface and decreasing the transport of gas into the surrounding liquid. Static diffusion decreases the diameter of albumin-shelled agents to a greater extent than lipid-shelled agents after insonation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11367791     DOI: 10.1109/58.896136

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control        ISSN: 0885-3010            Impact factor:   2.725


  81 in total

1.  Spatiotemporal control of micromechanics and microstructure in acoustically-responsive scaffolds using acoustic droplet vaporization.

Authors:  Mitra Aliabouzar; Christopher D Davidson; William Y Wang; Oliver D Kripfgans; Renny T Franceschi; Andrew J Putnam; J Brian Fowlkes; Brendon M Baker; Mario L Fabiilli
Journal:  Soft Matter       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 3.679

Review 2.  [Ultrasound contrast agents].

Authors:  T Albrecht; J Hohmann
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 0.635

3.  Excitation threshold for subharmonic generation from contrast microbubbles.

Authors:  Amit Katiyar; Kausik Sarkar
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Acoustic characterization of echogenic liposomes: frequency-dependent attenuation and backscatter.

Authors:  Jonathan A Kopechek; Kevin J Haworth; Jason L Raymond; T Douglas Mast; Stephen R Perrin; Melvin E Klegerman; Shaoling Huang; Tyrone M Porter; David D McPherson; Christy K Holland
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Stability analysis of ultrasound thick-shell contrast agents.

Authors:  Xiaozhen Lu; Georges L Chahine; Chao-Tsung Hsiao
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  A model for the dynamics of ultrasound contrast agents in vivo.

Authors:  Shengping Qin; Katherine W Ferrara
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 7.  Reverse engineering the ultrasound contrast agent.

Authors:  Mark A Borden; Kang-Ho Song
Journal:  Adv Colloid Interface Sci       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 12.984

8.  In situ bone tissue engineering via ultrasound-mediated gene delivery to endogenous progenitor cells in mini-pigs.

Authors:  Maxim Bez; Dmitriy Sheyn; Wafa Tawackoli; Pablo Avalos; Galina Shapiro; Joseph C Giaconi; Xiaoyu Da; Shiran Ben David; Jayne Gavrity; Hani A Awad; Hyun W Bae; Eric J Ley; Thomas J Kremen; Zulma Gazit; Katherine W Ferrara; Gadi Pelled; Dan Gazit
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 17.956

Review 9.  Contrast specific imaging in the detection and localization of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hessel Wijkstra; Margot H Wink; Jean J M C H de la Rosette
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2004-10-05       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  On the relationship between microbubble fragmentation, deflation and broadband superharmonic signal production.

Authors:  Brooks D Lindsey; Juan D Rojas; Paul A Dayton
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 2.998

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.