Bioeffects considerations for diagnostic ultrasound contrast agents

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 611-632

  Miller, Douglas L ^a,h   Averkiou, Michalakis A ^b   Brayman, Andrew A ^c   Everbach, E Carr ^d   Holland, Christy K ^e   Wible Jr , James H ^f   Wu, Junru ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b PHILIPS HEALTHCARE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^d SWARTHMORE COLLEGE   (United States)

^e University of Cincinnati   (United States)

^f MALLINCKRODT PHARMACEUTICALS   (United States)

^g University of Vermont   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Acoustic cavitation; Contrast agent adverse effects; Echocardiography; Mechanical index

Indexed keywords

BLOOD; DIAGNOSTIC PRODUCTS; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY;

ACOUSTIC CAVITATION; CONTRAST AGENT ADVERSE EFFECTS; ECHOGENICITY; MECHANICAL INDEX;

ULTRASONICS;

AFO 150; ALBUNEX; CONTRAST MEDIUM; ECHOVIST; ECOGEN; PB 127; PERFLUBUTANE; PERFLUTREN; QUANTISON; SHU 508; SONOVIST; SONOVUE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

B SCAN; BLEEDING; CELL DEATH; CELL INFILTRATION; CELL KILLING; CELL SUSPENSION; CONFERENCE PAPER; DOPPLER FLOWMETRY; ELECTROCARDIOGRAM; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; HEART INFARCTION; HEART MUSCLE; HEART VENTRICLE CONTRACTION; HEMOLYSIS; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; MELANOMA; MICROBUBBLE; MORTALITY; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; RADIATION EXPOSURE; SHEAR STRESS; SKELETAL MUSCLE; ULTRASOUND; VESICOURETERAL REFLUX;

EID: 41749110276     PISSN: 02784297     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7863/jum.2008.27.4.611     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (131)

1. Deng CX, Lizzi FL. A review of physical phenomena associated with ultrasonic contrast agents and illustrative clinical applications. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002; 28:277-285.
2. Frinking PJ, Bouakaz A, Kirkhorn J, Ten Cate FJ, de Jong N, Ultrasound contrast imaging: current and new potential methods. Ultrasound Med Biol 2000; 26:965-975.
3. Mulvagh SL, DeMaria AN, Feinstein SB, et al. Contrast echocardiography: current and future applications. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2000; 13:331-342.
4. Dawson D, Vincent MA, Barrett EJ, et al. Vascular recruitment in skeletal muscle during exercise and hyperinsulinemia assessed by contrast ultrasound. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2002; 282:E714-720.
5. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Mechanical Bioeffects from Diagnostic Ultrasound: AIUM Consensus Statements. J Ultrasound Med 2000; 19:67-168.
6. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Exposure Criteria for Medical Diagnostic Ultrasound, II: Criteria Based on All Known Mechanisms. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2002. Report 140.
7. Apfel RE. Acoustic cavitation: a possible consequence of biomedical uses of ultrasound. Br J Cancer 1982; 45(suppl):140-146.
8. Flynn HG. Generation of transient cavitation in liquids by microsecond pulses of ultrasound. J Acoust Soc Am 1982; 72:1926-1932.
9. Apfel RE, Holland CK. Gauging the likelihood of cavitation from short-pulse, low-duty cycle diagnostic ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 1991; 17:179-185.
10. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Acoustic Output Measurement and Labeling Standard for Diagnostic Ultrasound Equipment. Rockville, MD: American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine; Rosslyn, VA: National Electrical Manufacturers Association; 1992.
11. Holland CK, Apfel RE. Thresholds for transient cavitation produced by pulsed ultrasound in a controlled nuclei environment. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 88:2059-2069.
12. Price RJ, Kaul S. Contrast ultrasound targeted drug and gene delivery: an update on a new therapeutic modality. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther 2002; 7:171-180.
13. World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. WFUMB symposium on the safe use of echo-contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol 2007; 33:171-234.
14. Van Liew HD, Burkard ME. Bubbles in circulating blood: stabilization and simulations of cyclic changes of size and content J Appl Physiol 1995; 79:1379-1385.
15. Van Liew HD, Burkard ME. Behavior of bubbles of slowly permeating gas used for ultrasonic imaging contrast. Invest Radiol 1995; 30:315-321.
16. Meza M, Greener Y, Hunt R, et al. Myocardial contrast echocardiography: reliable, safe, and efficacious myocardial perfusion assessment after intravenous injections of a new echocardiographic contrast agent. Am Heart J 1996; 132:871-881.
17. Dittrich HC, Kuvelas T, Dadd K, et al. Safety and efficacy of the ultrasound contrast agent FS069 in normal humans: results of a phase one trial. Circulation 1995; 92:1-464.
18. Kitzman DW, Goldman ME, Gillam LD, Cohen JL Aurimemma GP, Gottdiener JS. Efficacy and safety of the novel ultrasound contrast agent perflutren (Definity) in patients with suboptimal baseline left ventricular echocardiographic images. Am J Cardiol 2000; 86:669-674.
19. Metzger-Rose C, Wright WH, Baker MR, et al. Effects of phospholipid-coated microbubbles (MRX-115) on the detection of testicular ischemia in dogs. Acad Radiol 1996; 3:S314-S316.
20. Lindner JR, Song J, Jayaweera AR, Sklenar J, Kaul S. Microvascular rheology of Definity microbubbles after intra-arterial and intravenous administration. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2002; 15:396-403.
21. Mulvagh SL, Foley DA, Aeschbacher BC, Klarich KK, Seward JE. Second harmonic imaging of an intravenously administered echocardiographic contrast agent: visualization of coronary arteries and measurement to coronary blood flow. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996; 27:1519-1525.
22. Schneider M, Arditi M, Barrau MB, et al. BR1: a new ultrasonographic contrast agent based on sulfur hexafluoride-filled microbubbles. Invest Radiol 1995; 30:451-457.
23. European Medicines Agency. Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use. Public Statement on SonoVue (Sulphur Hexafluoride): New Contraindication in Patients With Heart Disease - Restriction of Use to Non-Cardiac Imaging. London, England: European Medicines Agency; 2004. Publication EMEA/CPMP/212/04:2004.
24. Leong-Poi H, Song J, Rim SJ, Christiansen J, Kaul S, Lindner JR. Influence of microbubble shell properties on ultrasound signal: implications for low-power perfusion imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2002; 15:1269-1276.
25. Masugata H, Cotter B, Peters B, Ohmori K, Mizushige K, DeMaria AN. Assessment of coronary stenosis severity and transmural perfusion gradient by myocardial contrast echocardiography: comparison of grayscale and B-mode with power Doppler imaging. Circulation 2000; 102:1427-1433.
26. Church CC. The acoustical response of AI-700 in vitro [abstract]. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2000; 13:457.
27. Straub JA, Chickering DE, Church CC, Shah B, Hanlon T, Bernstein H. Porous PLGA microparticles: AI-700, an intravenously administered ultrasound contrast agent for use in echocardiography. J Control Release 2005; 108:21-32.
28. Lindner JR, Wei K. Contrast echocardiography. Curr Probl Cardiol 2002; 27:454-519.
29. Goldberg BB, Raichlen JS, Forsberg F (eds). Ultrasound Contrast Agents. 2nd ed. London, England: Martin Dunitz Ltd; 2001.
30. Leen E, Moug SJ, Horgan P. Potential impact and utilization of ultrasound contrast media. Eur Radiol 2004; 14(suppl 8):16-24.
31. Abramowicz JS. Ultrasound contrast media: has the time come in obstetrics and gynecology? J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24:517-531.
32. Blomley MJ, Cooke JC, Unger EC, Monaghan MJ, Cosgrove DO. Microbubble contrast agents: a new era in ultrasound. BMJ 2001; 322:1222-1225.
33. Darge K, Riedmiller H. Current status of vesicoureteral reflux diagnosis. World J Urol 2004; 22:88-95.
34. Strandell A, Bourne T, Bergh C, Granberg S, Asztely M, Thorburn J. The assessment of endometrial pathology and tubal patency: a comparison between the use of ultrasonography and X-ray hysterosalpingography for the investigation of infertility patients. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 14:200-204.
35. Jakobsen JA, Correas JM. Ultrasound contrast agents and their use in urogenital radiology: status and prospects. Eur Radiol 2001; 11:2082-2091.
36. Burns PN. Instrumentation for contrast echocardiography. Echocardiography 2002; 19:241-258.
37. Averkiou M, Powers J, Skyba D, Bruce M, Jensen S. Ultrasound contrast imaging research. Ultrasound Q 2003; 19:27-37.
38. Albrecht T, Blomley M, Bolondi L, et al. Guidelines for the use of contrast agents in ultrasound: January 2004. Ultraschall Med 2004; 25:249-256.
39. Porter TR, Xie F, Kricsfeld D, Armbruster RW. Improved myocardial contrast with second harmonic transient ultrasound response imaging in humans using intravenous perfluorocarbon-exposed sonicated dextrose albumin. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996; 27:1497-1501.
40. Kuersten B, Murthy TH, Li P, et al. Ultraharmonic myocardial contrast imaging: in vivo experimental and clinical data from a novel technique. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2001; 14:910-916.
41. Wei K, Jayaweera AR, Firoozan S, Linka A, Skyba DM, Kaul S. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with ultrasound-induced destruction of microbubbles administered as a constant venous infusion. Circulation 1998; 97:473-483.
42. de Jong N, Cornet R, Lancee CT. Higher harmonics of vibrating gas-filled microspheres, part one: simulations. Ultrasonics 1994, 32:447-453.
43. 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.
44. Marsh JN, Hughes MS, Hall CS, et al. Broadband through-transmission signal loss measurements of Albunex suspensions at concentrations approaching in vivo doses. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104:1654-1666.
45. Stride E, Saffari N. Theoretical and experimental investigation of the behaviour of ultrasound contrast agent particles in whole blood. Ultrasound Med Biol 2004; 30:1495-1509.
46. O'Brien WD Jr, Deng CX, Harris GR, et al. The risk of exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in postnatal subjects: thermal effects. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27:517-535.
47. Abramowicz JS, Barnett S, Duck F, Edmonds P, Hynynen K, Ziskin M. Fetal thermal effects of diagnostic ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27:541-559.
48. Chavrier F, Chapelon JY. Modeling of high-intensity focused ultrasound-induced lesions in the presence of cavitation bubbles. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 108:432-440.
49. Edson PL. The Role of Acoustic Cavitation in Enhanced Ultrasound-Induced Heating in a Tissue-Mimicking Phantom [dissertation]. Boston, MA: Boston University; 2001.
50. Prosperetti A. The thermal behavior of oscillating gas-bubbles. J Fluid Mech 1991; 222:587-616.
51. Holt RG, Roy RA. Measurements of bubble-enhanced heat-ing from focused, MHz-frequency ultrasound in a tissue-mimicking material. Ultrasound Med Biol 2001; 27:1399-1412.
52. Hilgenfeldt S, Lohse D, Zomack M. Response of bubbles to diagnostic ultrasound: a unifying theoretical approach. Eur Phys J B 1998; 4:247-255.
53. Hilgenfeldt S, Lohse D, Zomack M. Sound scattering and localized heat deposition of pulse-driven microbubbles. J Acoust Soc Am 2000; 107:3530-3539.
54. Stride E, Saffari N. The potential for thermal damage posed by microbubble ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasonics 2004; 42:907-913.
55. Fujishiro S, Mitsumori M, Nishimura Y, et al. Increased heating efficiency of hyperthermia using an ultrasound contrast agent: a phantom study. Int J Hyperthermia 1998; 14:495-502.
56. Wu J. Temperature rise generated by ultrasound in the presence of contrast agent. Ultrasound Med Biol 1998; 24:267-274.
57. Sokka SD, King R, Kynynen K. MRI-guided gas bubble enhanced ultrasound heating in in vivo rabbit thigh. Phys Med Biol 2003; 48:223-241.
58. Stride E, Saffari N. On the destruction of microbubble ultrasound contrast agents, Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29:563-573.
59. Miller DL, Dou C. Theoretical gas body pulsation in relation to empirical gas body destabilization and to cell membrane damage thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116:3742-3749.
60. Chomas JE, Dayton P, May D, Ferrara K. Threshold of fragmentation for ultrasonic contrast agents. J Biomed Opt 2001; 6:141-150.
61. Chomas JE, Dayton P, Allen J, Morgan K, Ferrara K. Mechanisms of contrast agent destruction. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2001; 48:232-248.
62. Carstensen EL, Gracewski S, Dalecki D. The search for cavitation in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol 2000; 26:1377-1385.
63. Porter TR, Everbach C, Kricsfeld D, Xie F. Myocardial cavitational activity during continuous infusion and bolus intravenous injections of perfluorocarbon-containing microbubbles. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2001; 14:618-625.
64. Miller MW, Miller DL, Brayman AA. A review of in vitro bioeffects of inertial ultrasonic cavitation from a mechanistic perspective. Ultrasound Med Biol 1996; 22:1131-1154.
65. Stratmeyer M, Greenleaf J, Dalecki D, Salvesen, K. Fetal ultrasound: mechanical effects. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27:597-605.
66. Church CC, Carstensen EL, Nyborg WL, Carson PL, Frizzell LA, Bailey MR. The risk of exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in postnatal subjects: nonthermal mechanisms. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27:565-592.
67. Rooney JA. Shear as a mechanism for sonically induced biological effects. J Acoust Soc Am 1972; 52:1718-1724.
68. Nyborg WL. Physical Mechanisms for Biological Effects of Ultrasound. Rockville, MD: Bureau of Radiological Health; 1997.
69. Miller DL. A review of the ultrasonic bioeffects of microsonation, gas-body activation, and related cavitation-like phenomena. Ultrasound Med Biol 1987; 13:443-470.
70. Miller DL. Frequency relationships for ultrasonic activation of free microbubbles, encapsulated microbubbles, and gasfilled micropores. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104:2498-2505.
71. Wu, J Theoretical study on shear stress generated by microstreaming surrounding contrast agents attached to living cells. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002; 28:125-129.
72. Miller DL, Dou C. Membrane damage thresholds for pulsed or continuous ultrasound in phagocytic cells loaded with contrast agent gas bodies. Ultrasound Med Biol 2004; 30:405-411.
73. Miller DL, Dou C. Membrane damage thresholds for 1- to 10-MHz pulsed ultrasound exposure of phagocytic cells loaded with contrast agent gas bodies in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol 2004; 30:973-977.
74. Miller DL, Gies RA, Chrisler WB. Ultrasonically induced hemolysis at high cell and gas body concentrations in a thin-disc exposure chamber. Ultrasound Med Biol 1997; 23:625-633.
75. Miller DL, Gies RA. Enhancement of ultrasonically-induced hemolysis by perfluorocarbon-based compared to air-based echo-contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol 1998; 24:285-292.
76. Brayman AA, Lizotte LM, Miller MW. Erosion of artificial endothelia in vitro by pulsed ultrasound: acoustic pressure, frequency, membrane orientation and microbubble contrast agent dependence. Ultrasound Med Biol 1999; 25:1305-1320.
77. Miller DL, Quddus J. Lysis and sonoporation of epidermoid and phagocytic monolayer cells by diagnostic ultrasound activation of contrast agent gas bodies. Ultrasound Med Biol 2001; 27:1107-1113.
78. Everbach EC, Makin IR, Azadniv M, Meltzer RS. Correlation of ultrasound-induced hemolysis with cavitation detector output in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol 1997; 23:619-624.
79. Miller MW, Everbach EC, Cox C, Knapp RR, Brayman AA, Sherman TA. A comparison of the hemolytic potential of Optison and Albunex in whole human blood in vitro: acoustic pressure, ultrasound frequency, donor and passive cavitation detection considerations. Ultrasound Med Biol 2001; 27:709-721.
80. Chen WS, Brayman AA, Matula TJ, Crum LA, Miller MW. The pulse length dependence of inertial cavitation dose and hemolysis. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29:739-746.
81. Chen W-S, Brayman AA, Matula TJ, Crum LA. Inertial cavitation dose and hemolysis produced in vitro with or without Optison. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29:725-737.
82. Miller MW, Everbach EC, Miller WM, Battaglia LF. Biological and environmental factors affecting ultrasound-induced hemolysis in vitro, 2: medium dissolved gas (pO2) content. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29:93-102.
83. Brayman AA, Strickler PL, Luan H, et al. Hemolysis of 40% hematocrit, Albunex-supplemented human erythrocytes by pulsed ultrasound: frequency, acoustic pressure and pulse length dependence. Ultrasound Med Biol 1997; 23:1237-1250.
84. Lindner JR, Dayton PA, Coggins MP, et al. Noninvasive imaging of inflammation by ultrasound detection of phagocytosed microbubbles. Biophys J 2000; 80:1547-1556.
85. Dayton PA, Chomas JE, Lum AFH, et al. Optical and acoustical dynamics of microbubble contrast agents inside neutrophils. Biophys J 2001; 80:1587-1586.
86. Shigeta K, Taniguchi N, Omoto K, et al. In vitro platelet activation by an echo contrast agent. J Ultrasound Med 2003; 22:365-373.
87. Ward M, Wu J, Chiu JF. Experimental study of the effects of Optison concentration on sonoporation in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol 2000; 26:1169-1175.
88. Miller DL, Bao S. The relationship of scattered subharmonic, 3.3-MHz fundamental and second harmonic signals to damage of monolayer cells by ultrasonically activated Albunex. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 103:1183-1189.
89. Dayton P, Klibanov A, Brandenburger G, Ferrara K. Acoustic radiation force in vivo: a mechanism to assist targeting of microbubbles. Ultrasound Med Biol 1999; 25:1195-1201.
90. Miller DL, Quddus J. Sonoporation of monolayer cells by diagnostic ultrasound activation of contrast-agent gas bodies. Ultrasound Med Biol 2000; 26:661-667.
91. Miller DL, Dou C, Song J. DNA transfer and cell killing in epidermoid cells by diagnostic ultrasound activation of contrast agent gas bodies in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29:601-607.
92. Kudo N, Miyaoka T, Okada K, Niwa K. Study on mechanism of cell damage caused by microbubbles exposed to ultrasound. Proc IEEE Ultrason Symp 2002; 1351-1354.
93. Skyba DM, Price RJ, Linka AZ, Skalak TC, Kaul S. Direct in vivo visualization of intravascular destruction of microbubbles by ultrasound and its local effects on tissue. Circulation 1998; 98:290-293.
94. Miller DL, Quddus J. Diagnostic ultrasound activation of contrast agent gas bodies induces capillary rupture in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000; 97:10179-10184.
95. van der Wouw P, Brauns AC, Bailey SE, Powers JE, Wilde AA. Premature ventricular contractions during triggered imaging with Ultrasound contrast. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2000; 13:288-294.
96. Ay T, Havauz X, Van Camp G, et al. Destruction of contrast microbubbles by ultrasound effects on myocardial function, coronary perfusion pressure and microvascular integrity. Circulation 2001; 104:461-466.
97. Chen S, Kroll MH, Shohet RV, Frenkel P, Mayer SA, Grayburn PA. Bioeffects of myocardial contrast microbubble destruction by echocardiography. Echocardiography 2002; 19:495-500.
98. Borges AC, Walde T, Reibis RK, et al. Does contrast echocardiography with Optison induce myocardial necrosis in humans? J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2002; 15:1080-1086.
99. Raisinghani A, Wei KS, Crouse L, et al. Myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) with triggered ultrasound does not cause premature ventricular complexes: evidence from PB127 MCE studies. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2003; 16:1037-1042.
100. Li P, Cao LQ, Dou CY, Armstrong WR, Miller DL. Impact of myocardial contrast echocardiography on vascular permeability: an in vivo dose response study of delivery mode, ultrasound power and contrast dose. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29:1341-1349.
101. Kobayashi N, Yasu T, Yamada S, et al. Influence of contrast ultrasonography with perflutren lipid microspheres on microvessel injury. Circ J 2003; 67:630-636.
102. Miller DL, Li P, Armstrong WF. The effect of time and of vasoactive drugs on capillary leakage induced during myocardial contrast echocardiography. Echocardiography 2004; 21:125-132.
103. Li P, Armstrong WR, Miller DL. Impact of myocardial contrast echocardiography on vascular permeability: comparison of three different contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol 2004; 30:83-91.
104. Miller DL, Li P, Gordon D, Armstrong WF. Histological characterization of microlesions induced by myocardial contrast echocardiography. Echocardiography 2005; 22:25-34.
105. Chapman S, Windle J, Xie F, McGrain A, Porter TR. Incidence of cardiac arrhythmias with therapeutic versus diagnostic ultrasound and intravenous microbubbles. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24:1099-1107.
106. Miller DL, Gies RA. Gas-body-based contrast agent enhances vascular bioeffects of 1.09 MHz ultrasound on mouse intestine. Ultrasound Med Biol 1998; 24:1201-1208.
107. Miller DL, Gies RA. The influence of ultrasound frequency and gas-body composition on the contrast agent-medicated enhancement of vascular bioeffects in mouse intestine. Ultrasound Med Biol 2000; 26:307-313.
108. Kobayashi N, Yasu T, Yamada S, et al. Endothelial cell injury in venule and capillary induced by contrast ultrasonography. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002; 28:949-956.
109. Schlachetzki F, Holscher T, Koch HJ, et al. Observation on the integrity of the blood-brain barrier after microbubble destruction by diagnostic transcranial color-coded sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2002; 21:419-429.
110. Wible JH Jr, Galen KP, Wojdyla JK, Hughes MS, Klibanov AL, Brandenburger GH. Microbubbles induce renal hemorrhage when exposed to diagnostic ultrasound in anesthetized rats. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002; 28:1535-1546.
111. O'Brien WD Jr, Simpson DG, Frizzell LA, Zachary JF. Effect of contrast agent on the incidence and magnitude of ultrasound-induced lung hemorrhage in rats. Echocardiography 2004; 21:417-422.
112. Miller DL, Dou C. Contrast-aided diagnostic ultrasound does not enhance lung metastasis in a mouse melanoma tumor model. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24:349-354.
113. Dalecki D, Rota C, Raeman CH, Child SZ. Premature cardiac contractions produced by ultrasound and microbubble contrast agents in mice. Acoust Res Lett Online 2005; 6:221-226.
114. Shigeta K, Itoh K, Ookawara S, Taniguchi N, Omoto K. Endothelial cell injury and platelet aggregation induced by contrast ultrasonography in the rat hepatic sinusoid. J Ultrasound Med 2004; 23:29-36.
115. Raeman CH, Dalecki D, Child SZ, Meltzer RS, Carstensen EL. Albunex does not increase the sensitivity of the lung to pulsed ultrasound. Echocardiography 1997; 14:553-558.
116. Miller DL, Gies RA. Consequences of lithotripter shockwave interaction with gas body contrast agent in mouse intestine. J Urol 1999; 162:606-609.
117. Hynynen K, McDannold N, Martin H, Jolesz FA, Vykhodtseva N. The threshold for brain damage in rabbits induced by bursts of ultrasound in the presence of an ultrasound contrast agent (Optison). Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29:473-481.
118. Hwang JH, Brayman AA, Reidy MA, Matula TJ, Kimmey MB, Crum LA. Vascular effects induced by combined 1-MHz ultrasound and microbubble contrast agent treatments in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005; 31:553-564.
119. Dalecki D, Raeman CH, Child SZ, et al. Hemolysis in vivo from exposure to pulsed ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 1997; 23:307-313.
120. Dalecki D, Child SZ, Raeman CH, Xing C, Gracewski S, Carstensen EL. Bioeffects of positive and negative acoustic pressures in mice infused with microbubbles. Ultrasound Med Biol 2000; 26:1327-1332.
121. Zachary JF, Hartleben SA, Frizzell LA, O'Brien WD Jr. Arrhythmias in rat hearts exposed to pulsed ultrasound after intravenous injection of a contrast agent. J Ultrasound Med 2002; 21:1347-1356.
122. Price RJ, Skyba DM, Kaul S, Skalak TC. Delivery of colloidal particles and red blood cells to tissue through microvessel ruptures created by targeted microbubble destruction with ultrasound. Circulation 1998; 98:1264-1267.
123. Pislaru SV, Pislaru C, Kinnick RR, et al. Optimization of ultrasound-mediated gene transfer: comparison of contrast agents and ultrasound modalities. Eur Heart J 2003; 24:1690-1698.
124. Christiansen JP, French BA, Klibanov AL, Kaul S, Lindner JR. Targeted tissue transfection with ultrasound destruction of plasmid-bearing cationic microbubbles. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29:1759-1767.
125. Shohet RV, Chen S, Zhou Y, et al. Echocardiographic destruction of albumin microbubbles directs gene delivery to the myocardium. Circulation 2000; 101:2554-2556.
126. Vannan M, McCreery T, Li P, et al. Ultrasound-mediated transfection of canine myocardium by intravenous administration of cationic microbubble-linked plasmid DNA. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2002; 15:214-218.
127. Bekeredjian R, Chen S, Frenkel PA, Grayburn PA, Shohet RV. Ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction can repeatedly direct highly specific plasmid expression to the heart. Circulation 2003; 108:1022-1026.
128. Chen S, Shohet RV, Bekeredjian R, Frenkel P, Grayburn PA. Optimization of ultrasound parameters for cardiac gene delivery of adenoviral or plasmid deoxyribonucleic acid by ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42:301-308.
129. Zhigang W, Zhiyu L, Haitao R, et al. Ultrasound-mediated microbubble destruction enhances VEGF gene delivery to the infarcted myocardium in rats. Clin Imaging 2004; 28:395-398.
130. 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.
131. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. Bioeffects of Diagnostic Ultrasound with Gas Body Contrast Agents. Laurel, MD: American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine; 2002. Available at: http://www.aium.org/publications/ statements/_statementSelected.asp?statement=25.