4.6 Article

Thrombolysis using multi-frequency high intensity focused ultrasound at MHz range: an in vitro study

期刊

PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 60, 期 18, 页码 7403-7418

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/18/7403

关键词

thrombolysis; multi-frequency HIFU; ultrasound

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) based thrombolysis has emerged as a promising drug-free treatment approach for ischemic stroke. The large amount of acoustic power required by this approach, however, poses a critical challenge to the future clinical translation. In this study, multi-frequency acoustic waves at MHz range (near 1.5 MHz) were introduced as HIFU excitations to reduce the required power for treatment as well as the treatment time. In vitro bovine blood clots weighing around 150 mg were treated by single-frequency and multi-frequency HIFU. The pulse length was 2 ms for all experiments except the ones where the duty cycle was changed. It was found that dual-frequency thrombolysis efficiency was statistically better than single-frequency under the same acoustic power and excitation condition. When varying the acoustic power but fixing the duty cycle at 5%, it was found that dual-frequency ultrasound can save almost 30% power in order to achieve the same thrombolysis efficiency. In the experiment where the duty cycle was increased from 0.5% to 10%, it was shown that dual-frequency ultrasound can achieve the same thrombolysis efficiency with only half of the duty cycle of single-frequency. Dual-frequency ultrasound could also accelerate the thrombolysis by a factor of 2-4 as demonstrated in this study. No significant differences were found between dual-frequencies with different frequency differences (0.025, 0.05, and 0.1 MHz) and between dual-frequency and triple-frequency. The measured cavitation doses of dual-frequency and triple-frequency excitations were at about the same level but both were significantly higher than that of single-frequency.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据