Effect of filling gases on the backscatter from contrast microbubbles: Theory and in vivo measurements

49Citations
Citations of this article
31Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Two surfactant-based contrast agents, ST44 and ST68, were produced according to US Patent # 5,352,436 and filled with either air, C4F10 (perfluorobutane) or SF6 (sulfur hexaflouride). Ten rabbits received IV injections of each agent/gas combination with 5 repetitions of each dose (range: 0.005-0.13 mL/kg). A custom-made 10-MHz cuff transducer was placed around the surgically exposed distal aorta and audio Doppler signals were acquired in vivo. Quantitative in vivo dose responses were calculated off-line using spectral power analysis and compared to a theoretical model of microbubble dissolution and enhancement. For qualitative comparisons, 10 rabbits were imaged pre- and postcontrast administration (dose: 0.1 mL/kg) in gray-scale and colour. All agent/gas combinations produced marked Doppler enhancement with air bubbles enhancing least of all (p < 0.0001) and ST68-SF6 best of all (maximum: 27.6 ± 2.04 dB; p < 0.012). There were no significant differences between other agent/gas combinations (0.30 < p < 0.70). Theoretical enhancement was within 1 order of magnitude of the experimental observations (i.e., deviations of up to 10 dB). The duration of contrast enhancement was 1-2 min for air-filled bubbles, 3-5 min for SF6-filled bubbles and more than 7 min for C4F10-filled bubbles. In conclusion, ST68-SF6 microbubbles produced most in vivo enhancement of the agent/gas combinations studied. Theory matched the measurements within an order of magnitude. Copyright (C) 1999 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Forsberg, F., Basude, R., Liu, J. B., Alessandro, J., Shi, W. T., Rawool, N. M., … Wheatley, M. A. (1999). Effect of filling gases on the backscatter from contrast microbubbles: Theory and in vivo measurements. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, 25(8), 1203–1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-5629(99)00079-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free