Cited by 90Ultrasound and Hyperthermia ApplicationsBarrier Structure and Function StudiesMicrobial Inactivation Methods

Effects of Transcranial Ultrasound and Intravenous Microbubbles on Blood Brain Barrier Permeability in a Large Animal Model

Xie, Feng, Boska, Michael D., Lof, John, Uberti, Mariano G., Tsutsui, Jeane M., Porter, Thomas R.·2008·Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology

Abstract

We sought to determine whether transtemporal-applied 1-MHz ultrasound-induced microbubble destruction may be a safe method of transiently altering blood brain barrier (BBB) permeability for drug delivery in a large animal model. Endothelial cells are an integral component of the BBB but also prevent passage of potentially therapeutic drugs. Ultrasound-mediated destruction (UMD) of microbubbles has been shown to disrupt this barrier in small animals when ultrasound is delivered through bone windows. However, the effects of temporal bone attenuation and scattering in a large animal may limit the clinical application of such a technique. Twenty-four pigs were studied. One-MHz pulsed-wave ultrasound at 2.0 W/cm(2) (20% duty cycle) across the temporal bone was applied for 30 min after intravenous injections of either albumin-coated perfluorocarbon microbubble (PESDA, 8 pigs), lipid-encapsulated perfluorocarbon microbubbles (LEMB, 8 pigs) or ultrasound alone (8 pigs). BBB leak was quantified at 30 and 120 min after insonation using Evans blue. Serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed in nine of the pigs (3 for each group) to quantify Gadolinium leak within the parenchyma. Peak negative pressures decreased ten-fold when ultrasound was transmitted across the pig temporal bone. Despite this, spectrophotometric analysis showed that both IV LEMB and PESDA combined with transtemporal ultrasound resulted in a significant increase in Evans blue extravasation across BBB of the…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2008.05.004

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 16 · Cited by 90

Authors
Xie, F., Boska, M. D., Lof, J., Uberti, M. G., Tsutsui, J. M., & Porter, T. R.
Affiliations
University of Nebraska Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Porter, Thomas R.
Venue
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-12
Volume
34
Issue
12
Pages
2028-2034
ISSN
0301-5629 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1983771172
Cited by
90
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Genentech
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Ultrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Barrier Structure and Function Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Microbial Inactivation Methods
Keywords
transcranial ultrasound, blood-brain barrier permeability, perfluorocarbon microbubbles, blood-brain barrier opening, Evans blue extravasation, gadolinium retention, pigs
MeSH terms
Animals, Blood-Brain Barrier, Capillary Permeability, Coloring Agents, Evans Blue, Feasibility Studies, Gadolinium, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Sonication, Spectrophotometry, Drug Delivery Systems, Models, Animal, Sus scrofa, Microbubbles

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review