• Shutao Wang, Gesthimani Samiotaki, Oluyemi Olumolade, Jameel A Feshitan, and Elisa E Konofagou.
• Ultrasound and Elasticity Imaging Laboratory, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
• Ultrasound Med Biol. 2014 Jan 1; 40 (1): 130-7.

AbstractFocused ultrasound, in the presence of microbubbles, has been used non-invasively to induce reversible blood-brain barrier (BBB) opening in both rodents and non-human primates. This study was aimed at identifying the dependence of BBB opening properties on polydisperse microbubble (all clinically approved microbubbles are polydisperse) type and distribution by using a clinically approved ultrasound contrast agent (Definity microbubbles) and in-house prepared polydisperse (IHP) microbubbles in mice. A total of 18 C57 BL/6 mice (n = 3) were used in this study, and each mouse was injected with either Definity or IHP microbubbles via the tail vein. The concentration and size distribution of activated Definity and IHP microbubbles were measured, and the microbubbles were diluted to 6 × 10(8)/mL before injection. Immediately after microbubble administration, mice were subjected to focused ultrasound with the following parameters: frequency = 1.5 MHz, pulse repetition frequency = 10 Hz, 1000 cycles, in situ peak rarefactional acoustic pressures = 0.3, 0.45 and 0.6 MPa for a sonication duration of 60 s. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging was used to confirm BBB opening and allowed for image-based analysis. Permeability of the treated region and volume of BBB opening did not significantly differ between the two types of microbubbles (p > 0.05) at peak rarefractional acoustic pressures of 0.45 and 0.6 MPa, whereas IHP microbubbles had significantly higher permeability and opening volume (p < 0.05) at the relatively lower pressure of 0.3 MPa. The results from this study indicate that microbubble type and distribution could have significant effects on focused ultrasound-induced BBB opening at lower pressures, but less important effects at higher pressures, possibly because of the stable cavitation that governs the former. This difference may have become less significant at higher pressures, where inertial cavitation typically occurs. Copyright © 2014 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

20 keywords...

hide…