4.5 Article

NON-INVASIVE LIVER ABLATION USING HISTOTRIPSY: PRECLINICAL SAFETY STUDY IN AN IN VIVO PORCINE MODEL

期刊

ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 43, 期 6, 页码 1237-1251

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.01.016

关键词

Liver; Ultrasound; Non-invasive; Ablation; Histotripsy; Cavitation; Safety

资金

  1. Histosonics, Inc.
  2. Johnson Johnson

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the safety profile for use of histotripsy, a non-invasive ultrasonic ablation method currently being developed for the treatment of liver cancer, for liver ablation in an in vivo porcine model. Histotripsy treatments were applied to the liver and hepatic veins of 22 porcine subjects, with half of the subjects receiving systemic heparinization. Vital signs (heart rate, blood pressure, temperature, electrocardiogram and SpO(2)) were monitored throughout the procedure and for 1 h post-treatment. Blood was drawn at six points during the experiment to analyze blood gases, liver function and free hemoglobin levels. All treatments were guided and monitored by real-time ultrasound imaging. After treatment, the tissue was harvested for histological analysis. Results indicated that histotripsy generated well-defined lesions inside the liver and around the treated hepatic veins of all subjects in both treatment groups. Vital signs and blood analysis revealed that animals responded well to histotripsy, with all animals surviving the treatment. One animal in the non-heparinized group had a transient increase in pH and decreases in blood pressure, heart rate and PCO2 during the 15-min vessel treatment, with these changes returning to baseline levels soon after the treatment. Overall, the results indicate that histotripsy can safely be performed on the liver without the need for systemic heparinization, even in regions containing large hepatic vessels, supporting its future use for the treatment of liver cancer. (C) 2017 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology.

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

4.5
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