Key result
Therapeutic ultrasound improves hindlimb perfusion ~32% over sham in PAD, outperforming shock wave therapy.
Why the study?
Therapeutic ultrasound has been developed for ischemic heart disease treatment, but its effects on reperfusion and angiogenesis compared to shock wave therapy have not been directly compared.
Does therapeutic ultrasound improve reperfusion and angiogenesis compared to shock wave therapy in a rat model of peripheral arterial disease?
Does therapeutic ultrasound improve reperfusion and angiogenesis compared to shock wave therapy in a rat model of peripheral arterial disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 66% vs 50%
p-value: p=0.02
Therapeutic ultrasound is more effective than shock wave therapy at promoting reperfusion in a rat model of hindlimb ischemia, suggesting potential utility for ischemic heart and peripheral arterial diseases.
Supports further preclinical testing of therapeutic ultrasound for ischemia; leaves open translation to human peripheral arterial disease.
BACKGROUND: Shock wave therapy (SWT) is an acoustic technology clinically used for the non-invasive treatment of ischemic heart disease (IHD). Therapeutic ultrasound (TUS) has more recently been developed for the same indication, although its effects on reperfusion and angiogenesis have yet to be directly compared to those of SWT. METHODS AND RESULTS: TUS and SWT acoustic parameters were matched, and their ability to promote angiogenesis and reperfusion in a rat hindlimb ischemia model was compared. After left femoral artery excision, 3-weekly TUS, SWT or sham treatments (n=10 rats each) of the left hindlimb were performed for 2 weeks. Laser Doppler perfusion imaging demonstrated improved perfusion with TUS (66±4% L:R hindlimb perfusion, mean±SEM, P=0.02), but not with SWT (59±4%, P=0.13) compared with sham (50±4%). Immunohistochemistry of CD31 demonstrated increased microvascular density with TUS (222.6 vessels/high-power field, P=0.001) and SWT (216.9, P=0.01) compared to sham-treated rats (196.0). Tissue vascular endothelial growth factor mRNA levels were elevated in the left hindlimb of TUS-, but not SWT- or sham-treated rats. CONCLUSIONS: Direct comparison demonstrates that TUS is more effective than SWT at promoting reperfusion, whereas both therapies promote angiogenesis in ischemic gastrocnemius muscle. These results suggest that TUS may be more effective than SWT for the treatment of IHD and peripheral arterial disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nazer et al. (2015) studied Peripheral Arterial Disease (Hindlimb Ischemia Model) (n=30). Therapeutic ultrasound (TUS) vs. Shock wave therapy (SWT) and sham was evaluated on Left to right hindlimb perfusion ratio at 2 weeks (p=0.02). Therapeutic ultrasound significantly improved hindlimb perfusion compared to sham therapy (66% vs 50%, P=0.02) in a rat model of peripheral arterial disease, whereas shock wave therapy did not.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: