Key result
Lower-frequency, higher-power ultrasound accelerates microbubble destruction.
Why the study?
The interactions between microbubbles and ultrasound are poorly understood, motivating examination of their behavior under different ultrasound conditions.
Does varying ultrasound frequency, transmission power, and pulsing interval affect the destruction of microbubbles in vitro and in vivo?
Does varying ultrasound frequency, transmission power, and pulsing interval affect the destruction of microbubbles in vitro and in vivo?
Ultrasound causes microbubble destruction that is exacerbated at lower frequencies and higher acoustic powers; modifying these parameters can minimize destruction and optimize myocardial perfusion imaging with venous injections.
OBJECTIVES We attempted to examine the interactions between ultrasound and microbubbles. BACKGROUND The interactions between microbubbles and ultrasound are poorly understood. We hypothesized that 1) ultrasound destroys microbubbles, and 2) this destruction can be minimized by limiting the exposure of microbubbles to ultrasound. METHODS We performed in vitro and in vivo experiments in which microbubbles were insonated at different frequencies, transmission powers and pulsing intervals. Video intensity decay was measured in vitro and confirmed by measurements of microbubble size and concentrations. Peak video intensity and mean microbubble myocardial transit rates were measured in vivo. RESULTS Imaging at lower frequencies and higher transmission powers resulted in more rapid video intensity decay (p = 0.01), and decreasing exposure of microbubbles to ultrasound minimized their destruction in vitro. Although these effects were also noted in vivo with venous injections of microbubbles, they were not seen with aortic root or direct coronary artery injections. CONCLUSIONS Ultrasound results in microbubble destruction that is more evident at lower frequencies and higher acoustic powers. Reducing the exposure of microbubbles to ultrasound minimizes their destruction. This effect is most marked in vivo with venous rather than aortic or direct coronary injections of microbubbles. These findings could lead to effective strategies for myocardial perfusion imaging with venous injections of microbubbles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wei et al. (1997) studied this question. Ultrasound vs. Different frequencies, transmission powers, and pulsing intervals was evaluated on Video intensity decay (p=0.01). Ultrasound resulted in more rapid microbubble destruction (measured by video intensity decay) at lower frequencies and higher transmission powers (p=0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: