PURPOSE: To quantify the effects of microbubble (MB) size, elasticity, and pulsed ultrasonic parameters on in vitro sonothrombolysis (ultrasound [US]-mediated thrombolysis) efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Monodispersive MBs with diameters of 1 μm or 3 μm were exposed to pulsed US (1 MHz or 3 MHz) to lyse rabbit blood clots. Sonothrombolysis efficacy (clot mass loss) was measured as functions of MB size and concentration, ultrasonic frequency and intensity, pulse duration (PD), pulse repeat frequency (PRF), and duty factor. RESULTS: Sonothrombolysis at 1 MHz was more effective using 3-μm MBs and at 3 MHz using 1-μm MBs. Sonothrombolysis was more effective at 1 MHz when≥75% of MBs remained intact, especially for 3-μm MBs; improving sonothrombolysis by increasing PRF from 100 Hz to 400 Hz at 3 MHz was associated with increasing 3-μm MB survival. However, 60% of 1-μm MBs were destroyed during maximal sonothrombolysis at 3 MHz, indicating that considerable MB collapse may be required for sonothrombolysis under these conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to control MB size and elasticity permits using a wide range of US parameters (eg, frequency, intensity) to produce desired levels of sonothrombolysis. Comparable, maximal sonothrombolysis efficacy was achieved at 20-fold lower intensity with 3-μm MBs (0.1W/cm(2)) than with 1-μm MBs (2.0W/cm(2)), a potential safety issue for in vivo sonothrombolysis. US parameters that maximized MB survival yielded maximal sonothrombolysis efficacy except with 1-μm MBs at 3MHz where most MBs were destroyed.
PURPOSE: To quantify the effects of microbubble (MB) size, elasticity, and pulsed ultrasonic parameters on in vitro sonothrombolysis (ultrasound [US]-mediated thrombolysis) efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Monodispersive MBs with diameters of 1 μm or 3 μm were exposed to pulsed US (1 MHz or 3 MHz) to lyse rabbit blood clots. Sonothrombolysis efficacy (clot mass loss) was measured as functions of MB size and concentration, ultrasonic frequency and intensity, pulse duration (PD), pulse repeat frequency (PRF), and duty factor. RESULTS: Sonothrombolysis at 1 MHz was more effective using 3-μm MBs and at 3 MHz using 1-μm MBs. Sonothrombolysis was more effective at 1 MHz when≥75% of MBs remained intact, especially for 3-μm MBs; improving sonothrombolysis by increasing PRF from 100 Hz to 400 Hz at 3 MHz was associated with increasing 3-μm MB survival. However, 60% of 1-μm MBs were destroyed during maximal sonothrombolysis at 3 MHz, indicating that considerable MB collapse may be required for sonothrombolysis under these conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to control MB size and elasticity permits using a wide range of US parameters (eg, frequency, intensity) to produce desired levels of sonothrombolysis. Comparable, maximal sonothrombolysis efficacy was achieved at 20-fold lower intensity with 3-μm MBs (0.1W/cm(2)) than with 1-μm MBs (2.0W/cm(2)), a potential safety issue for in vivo sonothrombolysis. US parameters that maximized MB survival yielded maximal sonothrombolysis efficacy except with 1-μm MBs at 3MHz where most MBs were destroyed.
Authors: Carlos A Molina; Marc Ribo; Marta Rubiera; Joan Montaner; Esteban Santamarina; Raquel Delgado-Mederos; Juan F Arenillas; Rafael Huertas; Francisco Purroy; Pilar Delgado; José Alvarez-Sabín Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-12-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Azzdine Y Ammi; Robin O Cleveland; Jonathan Mamou; Grace I Wang; S Lori Bridal; William D O'Brien Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 2.725
Authors: W C Culp; T R Porter; F Xie; T C Goertzen; T C McCowan; B N Vonk; B T Baxter Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Aliza T Brown; Rene Flores; Eric Hamilton; Paula K Roberson; Michael J Borrelli; William C Culp Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: George J Shaw; Jason M Meunier; Shao-Ling Huang; Christopher J Lindsell; David D McPherson; Christy K Holland Journal: Thromb Res Date: 2009-02-13 Impact factor: 3.944
Authors: Jeroen Slikkerveer; Pieter A Dijkmans; Gertjan T Sieswerda; Pieter A F M Doevendans; Arie P J van Dijk; Freek W A Verheugt; Thomas R Porter; Otto Kamp Journal: Trials Date: 2008-12-10 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Adam J Dixon; Jun Li; John-Marschner Robert Rickel; Alexander L Klibanov; Zhiyi Zuo; John A Hossack Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Adam J Dixon; John Marschner Robert Rickel; Brian D Shin; Alexander L Klibanov; John A Hossack Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Brandon Helfield; John J Black; Bin Qin; John Pacella; Xucai Chen; Flordeliza S Villanueva Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 2.998