Experimental investigations of nonlinearities and destruction mechanisms of an experimental phospholipid-based ultrasound contrast agent

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 42, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 95-104

  Casciaro, Sergio ^a,b   Errico, Rosa Palmizio ^b   Conversano, Francesco ^b   Demitri, Christian ^b   Distante, Alessandro ^a,b  

^a INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL PHYSIOLOGY   (Italy)

^b Euro Mediterranean Scientific Biomedical Institute   (Italy)

Author keywords

BR14; Broadband attenuation; Microbubble destruction; Nonlinear oscillation; Ultrasound contrast agent

Indexed keywords

BROMINE; BROMINE 14; PHOSPHOLIPID; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ACCURACY; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; EVALUATION; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; FRAGMENTATION REACTION; GAS DIFFUSION; IN VITRO STUDY; MEASUREMENT; MICROBUBBLE; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; OSCILLATION; PARTICLE SIZE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOUND PRESSURE; ULTRASOUND; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 33846233142     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000251576.68097.d1     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Frinking PJA, de Jong N. Acoustic modelling of shell-encapsulated gas bubbles. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1998;24:523-533.
2. Shi WT, Forsberg F, Hall AL, et al. Subharmonic imaging with microbubble contrast agents: initial results. Ultrason Imaging. 1999;21:79-94.
3. Hoff L, Sontum PC, Hovem JM. Oscillations of polymeric microbubbles: effect of the encapsulating shell. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;107:2272-2280.
4. Morgan KE, Allen JS, Dayton PA, et al. Experimental and theoretical evaluation of microbubble behaviour: effect of transmitted phase and bubble size. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2000;47:1494-1509.
5. de Jong N, Hoff L. Ultrasound scattering properties of Albunex microspheres. Ultrasonics. 1993;31:175-181.
6. Gorce J-M, Arditi M, Schneider M. Influence of bubble size distribution on the echogenicity of ultrasound contrast agents: a study of Sonovue™. Invest Radiol. 2000;35:661-671.
7. Reinhardt M, Hauff P, Briel A, et al. Sensitive particle acoustic quantification (SPAQ): a new ultrasound-based approach for the quantification of ultrasound contrast media in high concentrations. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:2-7.
8. Church CC. The effects of an elastic solid surface layer on the radial pulsations of gas bubbles. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995;97:1510-1521.
9. Chatterjee D, Sarkar K. A Newtonian rheological model for the interface of microbubble contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003;29:1749-1757.
10. de Jong N, Hoff L, Skotland T, et al. Absorption and scatter of encapsulated gas filled microspheres: theoretical considerations and some measurements. Ultrasonics. 1992;30:95-103.
11. Chin CT, Burns PN. Predicting the acoustic response of a microbubble population for contrast imaging in medical ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000;26:1293-1300.
12. de Jong N, Bouakaz A, Ten Cate FJ. Contrast harmonic imaging. Ultrasonics. 2002;40:567-573.
13. Shi WT, Forsberg F. Ultrasonic characterization of nonlinear properties of contrast microbubbles. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000;26:93-104.
14. Krishna PD, Newhouse VL. Second harmonic characteristics of the ultrasound contrast agents Albunex and FS069. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1997;23:453-459.
15. Kvikliene A, Jurkonis R, Ressner M, et al. Modelling of nonlinear effects and the response of ultrasound contrast microbubbles: simulation and experiment. Ultrasonics. 2004;42:301-307.
16. Bouakaz A, Versluis M, de Jong N. High-speed optical observations of contrast agent destruction. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2005;31:391-399.
17. Chen Q, Zagzebski J, Wilson T, et al. Pressure-dependent attenuation in ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002;28:1041-1051.
18. Tang M-X, Eckersley RJ, Noble A. Pressure-dependent attenuation with microbubbles at low mechanical index. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2005;31:377-384.
19. Wu J, Pepe J, Dewitt W. Nonlinear behaviors of contrast agents relevant to diagnostic and therapeutic applications. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003;29:555-562.
20. Kruse DE, Ferrara KW. A new imaging strategy using wideband transient response of ultrasound contrast agents. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2005;52:1320-1329.
21. Sun Y, Kruse DE, Dayton PA, et al. High-frequency dynamics of ultrasound contrast agents. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2005;52:1981-1991.
22. Goertz DE, Frijlink ME, Tempel D, et al. Contrast harmonic intravascular ultrasound: a feasibility study for vasa vasorum imaging. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:631-638.
23. Miller AP, Nanda NC. Contrast echocardiography: new agents. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2004;30:425-434.
24. Bertolotto M, Pozzato G, Croce LS, et al. Blood flow changes in hepatocellular carcinoma after the administration of thalidomide assessed by reperfusion kinetics during microbubble infusion: preliminary results. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:15-21.
25. Broumas AR, Pollard RE, Bloch SH, et al. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography and ultrasound for the evaluation of tumor blood flow. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:134-147.
26. Unger EC, Matsunaga TO, McCreery T, et al. Therapeutic applications of microbubbles. Eur J Rad. 2002;42:160-168.
27. Unger EC, Porter T, Culp W, et al. Therapeutic applications of lipid-coated microbubbles. Ad Drug Del Review. 2004;56:1291-1314.
28. Kondo I, Ohmori K, Oshita A, et al. Treatment of acute myocardial infarction by hepatocyte growth factor gene transfer: the first demonstration of myocardial transfer of a "functional" gene using ultrasonic microbubble destruction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:644-653.
29. Klibanov AL. Microbubble contrast agents: targeted ultrasound imaging and ultrasound-assisted drug-delivery applications. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:354-362.
30. Klibanov AL, Hughes MS, Wojdyla JK, et al. Destruction of contrast agent microbubbles in the ultrasound field: the fate of the microbubble shell and the importance of the bubble gas content. Acad Radiol. 2002;9:S41-S45.
31. Chomas JE, Dayton P, Allen J, et al. Mechanisms of contrast agent destruction. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2001;48:232-248.
32. Moran CM, Anderson T, Pye D, et al. Quantification of microbubble destruction of three fluorocarbon-filled ultrasonic contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000;26:629-639.
33. Kabalnov A, Klein D, Pelura T, et al. Dissolution of multicomponent microbubble in the bloodstream: 1. Theory. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1998;24:739-749.
34. Kabalnov A, Bradley J, Flaim S, et al. Dissolution of multicomponent microbubbles in the bloodstream: 2. Experiment. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1998;24:751-760.
35. Chen WS, Matula TJ, Brayman A, et al. A comparison of the fragmentation thresholds and inertial cavitation doses of different ultrasound contrast agents. J Acoustic Soc Am. 2003;113:643-651.
36. Chatterjee D, Jain P, Sarkar K. Ultrasound-mediated destruction of contrast microbubbles used for medical imaging and drug delivery. Phys Fluids. 2005;17:100603.
37. Greis C. Technology overview: Sonovue (Bracco, Milan). Eur Radiol Suppl. 2004;14(Suppl 8):11-15.
38. Hoff L. Acoustic Characterization of Contrast Agents for Medical Ultrsound Imaging. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001.
39. Chatterjee D, Sarkar K, Jain P, et al. On the suitability of broadband attenuation measurement for characterizing contrast microbubbles. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2005;31:781-786.
40. Takeuchi H, Ohmori K, Kondo I, et al. Interaction with leukocytes: phospholipid-stabilized versus albumin-shell microbubbles. Radiology. 2004;230:735-742.
41. Lindner JR, Dayton PA, Coggins MP, et al. Noninvasive imaging of inflammation by ultrasound detection of phagocytosed microbubbles. 2000;102:531-538.
42. Leighton TG. The Acoustic Bubble. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1994.