Janggun Jo1,2, M Laird Forrest3, Xinmai Yang4. 1. Vesarex LLC, Lawrence, KS, 66047, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109, USA. 3. Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 66045, USA. 4. Institute for Bioengineering Research and Department of Mechanical Engineering, the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 66045, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The combination of laser and ultrasound can significantly improve the efficiency of thrombolysis through an enhanced cavitation effect. We developed a fiber optics-based laser-ultrasound thrombolysis device and tested the feasibility and efficiency of this technology for restoring blood flow in an in vitro blood clot model. METHODS: An in vitro blood flow-clot model was setup, and then an endovascular laser thrombolysis system was combined with high-intensity focused ultrasound to remove the clot. The laser and ultrasound pulses were synchronized and delivered to the blood clot concurrently. The laser pulses of 532 nm were delivered to the blood clot endovascularly through an optical fiber, whereas the ultrasound pulses of 0.5 MHz were applied noninvasively to the same region. Effectiveness of thrombolysis was evaluated by the ability to restore blood flow, which was monitored by ultrasound Doppler. RESULTS: As laser powers increased, the ultrasound threshold pressures for effective thrombolysis decreased. For laser fluence levels of 0, 2, and 4 mJ/cm2 , the average negative ultrasound threshold pressures were 1.26 ± 0.114, 1.05 ± 0.181, and 0.59 ± 0.074 MPa, respectively. The periods of time needed to achieve effective thrombolysis were measured at 0.8, 2, and 4 mJ/cm2 laser fluence levels and 0.42, 0.70, and 0.98 MPa negative ultrasound pressures. In general, thrombolysis could be achieved more rapidly with higher laser powers or ultrasound pressures. CONCLUSIONS: Effective thrombolysis can be achieved by combining endovascular laser with noninvasive ultrasound at relatively low power and pressure levels, which can potentially improve both the treatment efficiency and safety.
PURPOSE: The combination of laser and ultrasound can significantly improve the efficiency of thrombolysis through an enhanced cavitation effect. We developed a fiber optics-based laser-ultrasound thrombolysis device and tested the feasibility and efficiency of this technology for restoring blood flow in an in vitro blood clot model. METHODS: An in vitro blood flow-clot model was setup, and then an endovascular laser thrombolysis system was combined with high-intensity focused ultrasound to remove the clot. The laser and ultrasound pulses were synchronized and delivered to the blood clot concurrently. The laser pulses of 532 nm were delivered to the blood clot endovascularly through an optical fiber, whereas the ultrasound pulses of 0.5 MHz were applied noninvasively to the same region. Effectiveness of thrombolysis was evaluated by the ability to restore blood flow, which was monitored by ultrasound Doppler. RESULTS: As laser powers increased, the ultrasound threshold pressures for effective thrombolysis decreased. For laser fluence levels of 0, 2, and 4 mJ/cm2 , the average negative ultrasound threshold pressures were 1.26 ± 0.114, 1.05 ± 0.181, and 0.59 ± 0.074 MPa, respectively. The periods of time needed to achieve effective thrombolysis were measured at 0.8, 2, and 4 mJ/cm2 laser fluence levels and 0.42, 0.70, and 0.98 MPa negative ultrasound pressures. In general, thrombolysis could be achieved more rapidly with higher laser powers or ultrasound pressures. CONCLUSIONS: Effective thrombolysis can be achieved by combining endovascular laser with noninvasive ultrasound at relatively low power and pressure levels, which can potentially improve both the treatment efficiency and safety.
Authors: Adam D Maxwell; Gabe Owens; Hitinder S Gurm; Kimberly Ives; Daniel D Myers; Zhen Xu Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Pavel B Rosnitskiy; Petr V Yuldashev; Oleg A Sapozhnikov; Adam D Maxwell; Wayne Kreider; Michael R Bailey; Vera A Khokhlova Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 2.725
Authors: Maureen P Kohi; Ryan Kohlbrenner; Kanti P Kolli; Evan Lehrman; Andrew G Taylor; Nicholas Fidelman Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2016-12
Authors: Michael J Stone; Victor Frenkel; Sergio Dromi; Peter Thomas; Ryan P Lewis; King C P Li; McDonald Horne; Bradford J Wood Journal: Thromb Res Date: 2007-05-04 Impact factor: 3.944
Authors: Wade S Smith; Gene Sung; Jeffrey Saver; Ronald Budzik; Gary Duckwiler; David S Liebeskind; Helmi L Lutsep; Marilyn M Rymer; Randall T Higashida; Sidney Starkman; Y Pierre Gobin; Donald Frei; Thomas Grobelny; Frank Hellinger; Dan Huddle; Chelsea Kidwell; Walter Koroshetz; Michael Marks; Gary Nesbit; Isaac E Silverman Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Shuiping Zhu; Bin Meng; Jianping Jiang; Xiaotao Wang; Na Luo; Ning Liu; Huaping Shen; Lu Wang; Qian Li Journal: Front Cell Neurosci Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 5.505