4.5 Article

Quantitative evaluation of focused ultrasound with a contrast agent on blood-brain barrier disruption

Journal

ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 9, Pages 1421-1427

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2007.04.006

Keywords

focused ultrasound; ultrasound contrast agent; blood-brain barrier disruption

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of an ultrasound contrast agent (UCA) with focused ultrasound sonication has the potential to disrupt the blood-brain barrier (BBB) noninvasively and reversibly at target locations. This study investigated the effects of UCA dose and ultrasound pressure on BBB disruption. Sonications were applied at 1 MHz with a burst length of 10 ms, a 1% duty cycle and a repetition frequency of 1 Hz. The duration of the sonication was 30 s. In in vivo experiments, 16 male Wistar rats were sonicated in the presence of UCA at four doses (0, 30, 60 and 90 mu L/kg). BBB integrity was evaluated by injecting Evans blue (EB) into the femoral vein of anesthetized rats. The relationship between UCA dose and the region of EB extravasation was evaluated at ultrasound pressures of 0.9 and 1.2 MPa. The BBB disruption, as quantified by the amount of EB extravasation, was significantly greater in rats injected with UCA at a dose of 60 or 90 mu L/kg than at a dose of 0 or 30 mu L/kg. The amount of EB extravasation increased monotonically with the quantity of UCA injected into the femoral vein before sonication. Furthermore, the BBB disruption could be enhanced in the focal region relative to the surrounding region with a higher dose of UCA (60 or 90 mu L/kg). This study demonstrates that BBB disruption can be both increased and localized to the focal region by injecting an appropriate quantity of UCA before performing focused ultrasound sonications. (E-mail: winli@ntu.edu.tw) (c) 2007 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available