4.7 Article

Noninvasive MR imaging-guided focal opening of the blood-brain barrier in rabbits

Journal

RADIOLOGY
Volume 220, Issue 3, Pages 640-646

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2202001804

Keywords

blood-brain barrier; experimental study; magnetic resonance (MR), guidance; magnetic resonance (MR), temperature monitoring; ultrasound (US), therapeutic

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA76550] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To determine if focused ultrasound beams can be used to locally open the blood-brain barrier without damage to surrounding brain tissue and if magnetic resonance (MR) imaging can be used to monitor this procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The brains of 18 rabbits were sonicated (pulsed sonication) in four to six locations, with temporal peak acoustic power ranging from 0.2 to 11.5 W. Prior to each sonication, a bolus of ultrasonographic (US) contrast agent was injected into the ear vein of the rabbit. A series of fast or spoiled gradient-echo MR images were obtained during the sonications to monitor the temperature elevation and potential tissue changes. Contrast material-enhanced MR images obtained minutes after sonications and repeated 1-48 hours later were used to depict blood-brain barrier opening. Whole brain histologic evaluation was performed. RESULTS: Opening of the blood-brain barrier was confirmed with detection of MR imaging contrast agent at the targeted locations. The lowest power levels used produced blood-brain barrier opening without damage to the surrounding neurons. Contrast enhancement correlated with the focal signal intensity changes in the magnitude fast spoiled gradient-echo MR images. CONCLUSION: The blood-brain barrier can be consistently opened with focused ultrasound exposures in the presence of a US contrast agent. MR imaging signal intensity changes may be useful in the detection of blood-brain barrier opening during sonication.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available