Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Application of low-frequency ultrasound for clot disruption has been suggested as a potential therapy to enhance thrombus dissolution, but the optimal mode for delivery of ultrasound with clot-disruptive properties has not yet been extensively explored. Target-specific effects are desirable and may be accomplished by focusing the ultrasound. Adequate focusing, however, requires a short wavelength. The aim of this study was to compare the clot-disruptive effects of different modalities of focused acoustic energy. An in vitro model (10 blood clots for each modality) was used to test the clot-disruptive capacity of (i) shock waves generated in an electrohydraulic lithotriptor; (ii) focused continuous ultrasound of frequency 1.1 MHz, delivered from a specially constructed piezoelectric transducer; and (iii) focused pulse-modulated ultrasound of frequency 1.1 MHz delivered from the same transducer. Exposure to 30 s of focused pulse-modulated ultrasound caused a marked reduction (99+/-2%) in clot weight compared with 30 shock waves (11+/-5%) or 30 s exposure to focused continuous wave ultrasound (11+/-6%) (P<0.0001). The observed marked and rapid disruptive effect on blood clots of focused high-frequency ultrasound indicates an alternative approach for external ultrasound-mediated thrombus destruction in vivo. The focused pulse-modulated technique has potential to exhibit the desired effect in a well-defined target volume and provides the means for control of the average power.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Westermark et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: