Monodisperse versus Polydisperse Ultrasound Contrast Agents: In Vivo Sensitivity and safety in Rat and Pig
Recent advances in the field of monodisperse microbubble synthesis by flow focusing allow for the production of foam-free, highly concentrated and monodisperse lipid-coated microbubble suspensions. It has been found that in vitro, such monodisperse ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) improve the sensi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ultrasound in medicine & biology 2020-12, Vol.46 (12), p.3339-3352 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 3352 |
---|---|
container_issue | 12 |
container_start_page | 3339 |
container_title | Ultrasound in medicine & biology |
container_volume | 46 |
creator | Helbert, Alexandre Gaud, Emmanuel Segers, Tim Botteron, Catherine Frinking, Peter Jeannot, Victor |
description | Recent advances in the field of monodisperse microbubble synthesis by flow focusing allow for the production of foam-free, highly concentrated and monodisperse lipid-coated microbubble suspensions. It has been found that in vitro, such monodisperse ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) improve the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging. Here, we present the first in vivo study in the left ventricle of rat and pig with this new monodisperse bubble agent. We systematically characterize the acoustic sensitivity and safety of the agent at an imaging frequency of 2.5 MHz as compared with three commercial polydisperse UCAs (SonoVue/Lumason, Definity/Luminity and Optison) and one research-grade polydisperse agent with the same shell composition as the monodisperse bubbles. The monodisperse microbubbles, which had a diameter of 4.2 μm, crossed the pulmonary vasculature, and their echo signal could be measured at least as long as that of the polydisperse UCAs, indicating that microfluidically formed monodisperse microbubbles are stable in vivo. Furthermore, it was found that the sensitivity of the monodisperse agent, expressed as the mean echo power per injected bubble, was at least 10 times higher than that of the polydisperse UCAs. Finally, the safety profile of the monodisperse microbubble suspension was evaluated by injecting 400 and 2000 times the imaging dose, and neither physiologic nor pathologic changes were found, which is a first indication that monodisperse lipid-coated microbubbles formed by flow focusing are safe for in vivo use. The more uniform acoustic response and corresponding increased imaging sensitivity of the monodisperse agent may boost emerging applications of microbubbles and ultrasound such as molecular imaging and therapy. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.07.031 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2448403433</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0301562920303410</els_id><sourcerecordid>2448403433</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c432t-465a87b71f091dca21f8ff118422d90ec85931d107f481cf682714c0098756b93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkE1vEzEQhi0EoqHwF5DFicsu44-s7d6q8FWpiAoo4mY5XrtytLGD7Y2Uf4_TlIojF3s0fmZe-UHoDYGeABnebfp5qtmUrRvXIfUUKPQgemDkCVoQKVRHFfn1FC2AAemWA1Vn6EUpGwAQAxPP0RljAHLgaoE2X1JMYyg7l4vD-3bOBd-k6fDYu73PSnMc8SrFY13x5Z2LtVzgq4h_hn3C310soYZ9qAdsGliMd60MEX8z9b5zE-5eomfeTMW9erjP0e3HDz9Wn7vrr5-uVpfXneWM1o4PSyPFWhAPiozWUOKl94RITumowFm5VIyMBITnklg_SCoItwBKiuWwVuwcvT3t3eX0e3al6m0o1k2TiS7NRVPOJQfGGWvoxQm1OZWSnde7HLYmHzQBfXStN_pf1_roWoPQzXUbfv2QM6_b8-PoX7kNeH8CXPvtPrisiw0uWjeG7GzVYwr_k_MHjmGXng</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2448403433</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Monodisperse versus Polydisperse Ultrasound Contrast Agents: In Vivo Sensitivity and safety in Rat and Pig</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Helbert, Alexandre ; Gaud, Emmanuel ; Segers, Tim ; Botteron, Catherine ; Frinking, Peter ; Jeannot, Victor</creator><creatorcontrib>Helbert, Alexandre ; Gaud, Emmanuel ; Segers, Tim ; Botteron, Catherine ; Frinking, Peter ; Jeannot, Victor</creatorcontrib><description>Recent advances in the field of monodisperse microbubble synthesis by flow focusing allow for the production of foam-free, highly concentrated and monodisperse lipid-coated microbubble suspensions. It has been found that in vitro, such monodisperse ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) improve the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging. Here, we present the first in vivo study in the left ventricle of rat and pig with this new monodisperse bubble agent. We systematically characterize the acoustic sensitivity and safety of the agent at an imaging frequency of 2.5 MHz as compared with three commercial polydisperse UCAs (SonoVue/Lumason, Definity/Luminity and Optison) and one research-grade polydisperse agent with the same shell composition as the monodisperse bubbles. The monodisperse microbubbles, which had a diameter of 4.2 μm, crossed the pulmonary vasculature, and their echo signal could be measured at least as long as that of the polydisperse UCAs, indicating that microfluidically formed monodisperse microbubbles are stable in vivo. Furthermore, it was found that the sensitivity of the monodisperse agent, expressed as the mean echo power per injected bubble, was at least 10 times higher than that of the polydisperse UCAs. Finally, the safety profile of the monodisperse microbubble suspension was evaluated by injecting 400 and 2000 times the imaging dose, and neither physiologic nor pathologic changes were found, which is a first indication that monodisperse lipid-coated microbubbles formed by flow focusing are safe for in vivo use. The more uniform acoustic response and corresponding increased imaging sensitivity of the monodisperse agent may boost emerging applications of microbubbles and ultrasound such as molecular imaging and therapy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0301-5629</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-291X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.07.031</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33008649</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Definity ; Flow focusing ; Lumason ; Luminity ; Monodisperse microbubbles ; Optison ; Sensitivity ; SonoVue ; Ultrasound contrast agents</subject><ispartof>Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2020-12, Vol.46 (12), p.3339-3352</ispartof><rights>2020 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c432t-465a87b71f091dca21f8ff118422d90ec85931d107f481cf682714c0098756b93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c432t-465a87b71f091dca21f8ff118422d90ec85931d107f481cf682714c0098756b93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.07.031$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27922,27923,45993</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33008649$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Helbert, Alexandre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gaud, Emmanuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Segers, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Botteron, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frinking, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jeannot, Victor</creatorcontrib><title>Monodisperse versus Polydisperse Ultrasound Contrast Agents: In Vivo Sensitivity and safety in Rat and Pig</title><title>Ultrasound in medicine & biology</title><addtitle>Ultrasound Med Biol</addtitle><description>Recent advances in the field of monodisperse microbubble synthesis by flow focusing allow for the production of foam-free, highly concentrated and monodisperse lipid-coated microbubble suspensions. It has been found that in vitro, such monodisperse ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) improve the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging. Here, we present the first in vivo study in the left ventricle of rat and pig with this new monodisperse bubble agent. We systematically characterize the acoustic sensitivity and safety of the agent at an imaging frequency of 2.5 MHz as compared with three commercial polydisperse UCAs (SonoVue/Lumason, Definity/Luminity and Optison) and one research-grade polydisperse agent with the same shell composition as the monodisperse bubbles. The monodisperse microbubbles, which had a diameter of 4.2 μm, crossed the pulmonary vasculature, and their echo signal could be measured at least as long as that of the polydisperse UCAs, indicating that microfluidically formed monodisperse microbubbles are stable in vivo. Furthermore, it was found that the sensitivity of the monodisperse agent, expressed as the mean echo power per injected bubble, was at least 10 times higher than that of the polydisperse UCAs. Finally, the safety profile of the monodisperse microbubble suspension was evaluated by injecting 400 and 2000 times the imaging dose, and neither physiologic nor pathologic changes were found, which is a first indication that monodisperse lipid-coated microbubbles formed by flow focusing are safe for in vivo use. The more uniform acoustic response and corresponding increased imaging sensitivity of the monodisperse agent may boost emerging applications of microbubbles and ultrasound such as molecular imaging and therapy.</description><subject>Definity</subject><subject>Flow focusing</subject><subject>Lumason</subject><subject>Luminity</subject><subject>Monodisperse microbubbles</subject><subject>Optison</subject><subject>Sensitivity</subject><subject>SonoVue</subject><subject>Ultrasound contrast agents</subject><issn>0301-5629</issn><issn>1879-291X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkE1vEzEQhi0EoqHwF5DFicsu44-s7d6q8FWpiAoo4mY5XrtytLGD7Y2Uf4_TlIojF3s0fmZe-UHoDYGeABnebfp5qtmUrRvXIfUUKPQgemDkCVoQKVRHFfn1FC2AAemWA1Vn6EUpGwAQAxPP0RljAHLgaoE2X1JMYyg7l4vD-3bOBd-k6fDYu73PSnMc8SrFY13x5Z2LtVzgq4h_hn3C310soYZ9qAdsGliMd60MEX8z9b5zE-5eomfeTMW9erjP0e3HDz9Wn7vrr5-uVpfXneWM1o4PSyPFWhAPiozWUOKl94RITumowFm5VIyMBITnklg_SCoItwBKiuWwVuwcvT3t3eX0e3al6m0o1k2TiS7NRVPOJQfGGWvoxQm1OZWSnde7HLYmHzQBfXStN_pf1_roWoPQzXUbfv2QM6_b8-PoX7kNeH8CXPvtPrisiw0uWjeG7GzVYwr_k_MHjmGXng</recordid><startdate>202012</startdate><enddate>202012</enddate><creator>Helbert, Alexandre</creator><creator>Gaud, Emmanuel</creator><creator>Segers, Tim</creator><creator>Botteron, Catherine</creator><creator>Frinking, Peter</creator><creator>Jeannot, Victor</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202012</creationdate><title>Monodisperse versus Polydisperse Ultrasound Contrast Agents: In Vivo Sensitivity and safety in Rat and Pig</title><author>Helbert, Alexandre ; Gaud, Emmanuel ; Segers, Tim ; Botteron, Catherine ; Frinking, Peter ; Jeannot, Victor</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c432t-465a87b71f091dca21f8ff118422d90ec85931d107f481cf682714c0098756b93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Definity</topic><topic>Flow focusing</topic><topic>Lumason</topic><topic>Luminity</topic><topic>Monodisperse microbubbles</topic><topic>Optison</topic><topic>Sensitivity</topic><topic>SonoVue</topic><topic>Ultrasound contrast agents</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Helbert, Alexandre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gaud, Emmanuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Segers, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Botteron, Catherine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frinking, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jeannot, Victor</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Ultrasound in medicine & biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Helbert, Alexandre</au><au>Gaud, Emmanuel</au><au>Segers, Tim</au><au>Botteron, Catherine</au><au>Frinking, Peter</au><au>Jeannot, Victor</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Monodisperse versus Polydisperse Ultrasound Contrast Agents: In Vivo Sensitivity and safety in Rat and Pig</atitle><jtitle>Ultrasound in medicine & biology</jtitle><addtitle>Ultrasound Med Biol</addtitle><date>2020-12</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>3339</spage><epage>3352</epage><pages>3339-3352</pages><issn>0301-5629</issn><eissn>1879-291X</eissn><abstract>Recent advances in the field of monodisperse microbubble synthesis by flow focusing allow for the production of foam-free, highly concentrated and monodisperse lipid-coated microbubble suspensions. It has been found that in vitro, such monodisperse ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) improve the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging. Here, we present the first in vivo study in the left ventricle of rat and pig with this new monodisperse bubble agent. We systematically characterize the acoustic sensitivity and safety of the agent at an imaging frequency of 2.5 MHz as compared with three commercial polydisperse UCAs (SonoVue/Lumason, Definity/Luminity and Optison) and one research-grade polydisperse agent with the same shell composition as the monodisperse bubbles. The monodisperse microbubbles, which had a diameter of 4.2 μm, crossed the pulmonary vasculature, and their echo signal could be measured at least as long as that of the polydisperse UCAs, indicating that microfluidically formed monodisperse microbubbles are stable in vivo. Furthermore, it was found that the sensitivity of the monodisperse agent, expressed as the mean echo power per injected bubble, was at least 10 times higher than that of the polydisperse UCAs. Finally, the safety profile of the monodisperse microbubble suspension was evaluated by injecting 400 and 2000 times the imaging dose, and neither physiologic nor pathologic changes were found, which is a first indication that monodisperse lipid-coated microbubbles formed by flow focusing are safe for in vivo use. The more uniform acoustic response and corresponding increased imaging sensitivity of the monodisperse agent may boost emerging applications of microbubbles and ultrasound such as molecular imaging and therapy.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>33008649</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.07.031</doi><tpages>14</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0301-5629 |
ispartof | Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2020-12, Vol.46 (12), p.3339-3352 |
issn | 0301-5629 1879-291X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2448403433 |
source | ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
subjects | Definity Flow focusing Lumason Luminity Monodisperse microbubbles Optison Sensitivity SonoVue Ultrasound contrast agents |
title | Monodisperse versus Polydisperse Ultrasound Contrast Agents: In Vivo Sensitivity and safety in Rat and Pig |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T09%3A04%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Monodisperse%20versus%20Polydisperse%20Ultrasound%20Contrast%20Agents:%20In%20Vivo%20Sensitivity%20and%20safety%20in%20Rat%20and%20Pig&rft.jtitle=Ultrasound%20in%20medicine%20&%20biology&rft.au=Helbert,%20Alexandre&rft.date=2020-12&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=3339&rft.epage=3352&rft.pages=3339-3352&rft.issn=0301-5629&rft.eissn=1879-291X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2020.07.031&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2448403433%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2448403433&rft_id=info:pmid/33008649&rft_els_id=S0301562920303410&rfr_iscdi=true |