Search

In this study, the destruction of the contrast agent Sonazoid (GE Healthcare, Oslo, Norway) was measured in vitro as a function of centre frequency (2-3 MHz), acoustic amplitude (0.66-1.6 MPa), pulse length (2-16 cycles) and PRF (0.5-8.0 kHz). Up to 82% of microbubbles were destroyed after exposure to a single 1.6 MPa acoustic pulse (16 cycles, 2.5 MHz and PRF of 1.0 kHz), while at a low amplitude of 0.66 MPa, fractional destruction increased gradually from 0 to 40% after exposure to 9 (identical) pulses. Fractional destruction increased from approximately 8 to 66% as pulse length was changed from 2 to 16 cycles following exposure to a single 2.5 MHz, 1.3 MPa pulse. As the PRF was increased from 0.5 to 8.0 kHz, shorter exposure time intervals (from 4.8 to 1.2 ms) were needed to achieve the same fractional destruction of 80%. Conversely, as the transmit frequency was increased from 2 to 3 MHz the fractional destruction decreased (by more than half within the first 3 pulses). The influence of changes in acoustic pressure and duty cycle on the destruction of Sonazoid microbubbles was highly statistically significant (p < or = 0.01) with a threshold around 0.67 MPa for a duty cycle of 0.0064. In conclusion, the fractional destruction increases with the duty cycle and the acoustic pressure amplitude and decreases with ultrasonic transmit frequency. Better understanding of the influence of the ultrasound transmit parameters on the destruction of contrast microbubbles should help improve existing contrast-assisted imaging modalities and may help develop new techniques for better use of contrast agents.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mechanical index (MI) displayed on clinical ultrasound scanners as a predictor of exposure conditions related to the destruction of sonographic microbubble contrast agents., Methods: Sonazoid (GE Healthcare, Oslo, Norway) and Optison (GE Healthcare, Princeton, NJ) microbubbles were injected into a tissue-mimicking flow phantom. Gray scale imaging was performed with 4 different scanners and 3 different transducers (3.5 MHz curved linear, 2.5 MHz convex, and 7.5 MHz linear array), and the MI displayed by the scanner was varied from 0.2 to 1.5 by changing the system output power. All other scanning parameters were kept constant. Downstream changes in echogenicity were monitored with a PowerVision 7000 scanner (Toshiba America Medical Systems, Tustin, CA) as an indirect measure of bubble destruction. Video intensity changes within the flow tube were determined as a function of MI for the different scanner/transducer combinations, and the best linear fit was determined., Results: At a displayed MI of 0.7, different scanner/transducer combinations exhibited a range in video intensity from +16% to -3% of baseline for Sonazoid and from +8% to -71% for Optison. At an MI of 0.3, reductions in video intensity of up to 32% were produced. These results indicate a wide range in bubble destruction at identical MI values. Likewise, regression analysis found no linear fits for all scanner/transducer combinations (r2 < 0.046)., Conclusions: The MI displayed on clinical ultrasound scanners does not predict the degree of microbubble destruction and should not be used by itself to define exposure conditions for destruction of microbubble contrast agents.

The destruction of insonified Sonazoid microbubbles and its association with inertial cavitation in vitro utilizing an active acoustic detector was investigated. The experimental observation indicated that contrast microbubbles could be damaged at moderate acoustic pressures of 0.6-1.6 MPa (0.4-1.0 in mechanical index, MI). A damaged bubble could be dissolved into the medium on the order of 1 ms, implying that the destruction at moderate pressures is a relatively slow (relative to inertial bubble collapse), nonviolent dissolution process following the disruption of encapsulating surface materials. Inertial cavitation events in the presence of contrast microbubbles were observed using multiple highly intense ultrasound (US) pulses (>1.6 MPa). This observation suggested that intense US might disintegrate contrast microbubbles, and fragments of disintegrated microbubbles could be activated by an upcoming highly intense imaging pulse. The above results imply that inertial cavitation is unlikely to take place in the presence of Sonazoid contrast microbubbles when exposed to diagnostic US with an MI <1.