| Literature DB >> 25512864 |
Golnaz Ahadi1, Christian S Welch2, Michele J Grimm3, David J Fisher4, Eyal Zadicario5, Karin Ernström6, Arne H Voie4, Thilo Hölscher7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The primary goal of this study was to investigate the relationship between increasing output power levels and clot fragmentation during high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)-induced thrombolysis.Entities:
Keywords: Clot debris; Clot fragmentation; High-intensity focused ultrasound; Stroke; Thrombolysis
Year: 2013 PMID: 25512864 PMCID: PMC4265953 DOI: 10.1186/2050-5736-1-22
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ther Ultrasound ISSN: 2050-5736
Figure 1Schematic display of the HIFU thrombolysis and clot fragmentation experimental setup. The hydrophone position describes the location of the natural focus beam, in the center of the blood clot.
Clot fragmentation (post-/pre-wet filter weight) 180-μm filter
| 1 | 0 | 60 | −4.2 | 0.01 | −18.5 | −5.5 | 8.5 | - |
| 2 | 50 | 62 | −2.6 | 0.01 | −13.5 | −3 | 15.5 | 0.6666 |
| 3 | 100 | 20 | −1 | 0.01 | −10.5 | 0 | 7.5 | 0.1285 |
| 4 | 125 | 63 | −1.7 | 0.01 | −15.5 | −1.5 | 14.5 | 0.1134 |
| 5 | 150 | 65 | −1.2 | 0.01 | −12.5 | −1.5 | 10.5 | 0.0266 |
| 6 | 200 | 20 | 18.3 | 0.1 | −17.5 | −3 | 433.5 | 0.6666 |
| 7 | 235 | 20 | −2.8 | 0.01 | −10.5 | −3.5 | 6.5 | 0.6666 |
| 8 | 270 | 22 | −1.3 | 0.01 | −12.5 | 1.5 | 15.5 | 0.2868 |
| 9 | 400 | 20 | 2 | 0.01 | −17.5 | 0 | 18.5 | 0.0048 |
| Overall | - | 352 | 0 | 0.02 | 20 | 0 | 0.43 | - |
p Values reflect comparison to the 0 W group, adjusted for multiple comparison.
Clot fragmentation (post-/pre-wet filter weight) 60-μm filter
| 1 | 0 | 60 | 3.7 | 0 | −1.1 | 2.9 | 21.9 | - |
| 2 | 50 | 62 | 3.5 | 0 | −1.1 | 2.4 | 10.9 | >0.9999 |
| 3 | 100 | 20 | 1.3 | 0.04 | 1.9 | 3.9 | 18.1 | >0.9999 |
| 4 | 125 | 63 | 3.3 | 0 | −4.1 | 2.9 | 11.9 | >0.9999 |
| 5 | 150 | 65 | 3.2 | 0 | −12.1 | 2.9 | 15.9 | >0.9999 |
| 6 | 200 | 20 | 21.2 | 0.06 | −2.1 | 3.4 | 19.1 | >0.9999 |
| 7 | 235 | 20 | 2.6 | 0 | −2.1 | 1.9 | 6.9 | >0.9999 |
| 8 | 270 | 22 | 10.6 | 0.04 | −6.1 | 3.4 | 180.9 | >0.9999 |
| 9 | 400 | 20 | 13.4 | 0.04 | −1.1 | 3.9 | 190.9 | >0.9999 |
| Overall | - | 352 | 0.01 | 0.02 | −10 | 0 | 0.19 | - |
p Values reflect comparison to the 0 W group, adjusted for multiple comparison.
Clot fragmentation (post-/pre-wet filter weight) 11-μm filter
| 1 | 0 | 60 | 2.4 | 0 | −8.2 | 1.8 | 11.8 | - |
| 2 | 50 | 62 | 3.3 | 0 | −8.2 | 2.8 | 19.8 | >0.9999 |
| 3 | 100 | 20 | 18.5 | 0.07 | −2.2 | 3.3 | 310.8 | >0.9999 |
| 4 | 125 | 63 | 2.7 | 0 | −6.2 | 2.8 | 13.8 | >0.9999 |
| 5 | 150 | 65 | 4.2 | 0.01 | −6.2 | 2.8 | 50.8 | >0.9999 |
| 6 | 200 | 20 | 3 | 0 | −3.2 | 2.8 | 12.8 | >0.9999 |
| 7 | 235 | 20 | 2.2 | 0 | −2.2 | 1.8 | 5.8 | >0.9999 |
| 8 | 270 | 22 | 2.2 | 0 | −3.2 | 2.3 | 9.8 | >0.9999 |
| 9 | 400 | 20 | 2.7 | 0 | −1.2 | 1.8 | 9.8 | >0.9999 |
| Overall | - | 352 | 3.9 | 0.02 | −8.2 | 2.8 | 310.8 | - |
p Values reflect comparison to the 0 W group, adjusted for multiple comparison.
Percent clot weight loss - clot lysis in relation to intensity
| 1 | 0 | 60 | 0.0 | 0.01 | 1.75 | 4.01 | >0.05 |
| 2 | 50 | 62 | 10.0 | 0.01 | 4.55 | 4.62 | >0.05 |
| 3 | 100 | 66 | 10.0 | 0.01 | 5.63 | 3.22 | >0.05 |
| 4 | 125 | 63 | 20.0 | 0.02 | 8.97 | 6.3 | <0.001 |
| 5 | 150 | 65 | 30.0 | 0.02 | 12.9 | 9.75 | <0.001 |
| 6 | 200 | 61 | 70.0 | 0.05 | 28.22 | 18.70 | <0.001 |
| 7 | 235 | 61 | 100.0 | 0.05 | 41.41 | 20.3 | <0.001 |
| 8 | 270 | 62 | 150.0 | 0.04 | 61.04 | 14.56 | <0.001 |
| 9 | 400 | 61 | 180.0 | 0.03 | 74.83 | 10.12 | <0.001 |
Figure 2Percent clot weight loss for each acoustic output power group.
Acoustic parameters at the focus with tubing
| 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 50 | 29.71 | 1.45 | 1.32 | 0.14 |
| 100 | 59.27 | 2.07 | 1.93 | 0.28 |
| 125 | 75.57 | 2.34 | 2.11 | 0.35 |
| 150 | 92.05 | 2.55 | 2.34 | 0.42 |
| 200 | 121.05 | 2.95 | 2.73 | 0.57 |
| 235 | 144.22 | 3.27 | 2.91 | 0.66 |
| 270 | 130.43 | 3.81 | 3.09 | 0.76 |
| 400 | 193.24 | 4.32 | 3.76 | 1.13 |