title: Effect of microbubble size on fundamental mode high frequency ultrasound imaging in mice.
abstract: High-frequency ultrasound imaging using microbubble (MB) contrast agents is becoming increasingly popular in pre-clinical and small animal studies of anatomy, flow and vascular expression of molecular epitopes. Currently, in vivo imaging studies rely on highly polydisperse microbubble suspensions, which may provide a complex and varied acoustic response. To study the effect of individual microbubble size populations, microbubbles of 1-2 microm, 4-5 microm and 6-8 microm diameter were isolated using the technique of differential centrifugation. Size-selected microbubbles were imaged in the mouse kidney over a range of concentrations using a Visualsonics Vevo 770 ultrasound imaging system (Visualsonics, Toronto, Ontario, Canada) with a 40-MHz probe in fundamental mode. Results demonstrate that contrast enhancement and circulation persistence are strongly dependent on microbubble size and concentration. Large microbubbles (4-5 and 6-8 microm) strongly enhanced the ultrasound image with positive contrast, while 1-2 microm microbubbles showed little enhancement. For example, the total integrated contrast enhancement, measured by the area under the time-intensity curve (AUC), increased 16-fold for 6-8 microm diameter microbubbles at 5 x 10(7) MB/bolus compared with 4-5 microm microbubbles at the same concentration. Interestingly, 1-2 microm diameter microbubbles, at any concentration, did not measurably enhance the integrated ultrasound signal at tissue depth, but did noticeably attenuate the signal, indicating that they had a low scattering-to-attenuation ratio. When concentration matched, larger microbubbles were more persistent in circulation. However, when volume matched, all microbubble sizes had a similar circulation half-life. These results indicated that dissolution of the gas core plays a larger role in contrast elimination than filtering by the lungs and spleen. The results of this study show that microbubbles can be tailored for optimal contrast enhancement in fundamental mode imaging.
authors.affiliation: Department of Chemical Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA.
authors.forename: Shashank
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Sirsi
authors.forename: Jameel
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Feshitan
authors.forename: James
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Kwan
authors.forename: Shunichi
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Homma
authors.forename: Mark
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Borden
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D003287:Contrast Media / Q000493:pharmacokinetics*; D003952:Diagnostic Imaging; D005260:Female; D007668:Kidney / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D051379:Mice; D045423:Microbubbles; D008954:Models, Biological; D010316:Particle Size; D014465:Ultrasonics; D014463:Ultrasonography
chemical_list: D003287:Contrast Media
references.citation: Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009 Aug;35(8):1385-96
references.pmid: 19616160
references.citation: J Control Release. 2008 Nov 12;131(3):160-6
references.pmid: 18718854
references.citation: Ultrasonics. 1992 Mar;30(2):95-103
references.pmid: 1557838
references.citation: Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009 Oct;35(10):1700-8
references.pmid: 19647922
references.citation: Ultrasound Med Biol. 1999 Oct;25(8):1321-4
references.pmid: 10576274
references.citation: Invest Radiol. 2000 Nov;35(11):661-71
references.pmid: 11110302
references.citation: J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2002 May;15(5):396-403
references.pmid: 12019422
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Apr;115(4):1818-25
references.pmid: 15101659
references.citation: Ultrasonics. 1998 Feb;36(1-5):703-8
references.pmid: 9651600
references.citation: ILAR J. 2001;42(3):233-47
references.pmid: 11406722
references.citation: Langmuir. 2010 May 4;26(9):6542-8
references.pmid: 20067292
references.citation: Ultrasonics. 1993;31(3):175-81
references.pmid: 8484195
references.citation: Circulation. 2000 Aug 1;102(5):531-8
references.pmid: 10920065
references.citation: Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009 Feb;35(2):296-307
references.pmid: 18950930
references.citation: J Nucl Cardiol. 2007 Nov-Dec;14(6):876-84
references.pmid: 18022115
references.citation: Ultrasound Med Biol. 1998 Mar;24(3):469-72
references.pmid: 9588001
references.citation: J Control Release. 2006 Sep 12;114(3):288-99
references.pmid: 16887229
references.citation: Gastroenterology. 2009 Jul;137(1):43-52
references.pmid: 19422826
references.citation: J Colloid Interface Sci. 2009 Jan 15;329(2):316-24
references.pmid: 18950786
references.citation: Invest Radiol. 2006 Mar;41(3):354-62
references.pmid: 16481920
references.citation: Eur Radiol. 2008 Apr;18(4):753-8
references.pmid: 18084768
references.citation: Pharmacol Rev. 2001 Jun;53(2):283-318
references.pmid: 11356986
references.citation: Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000 Jan;26(1):81-91
references.pmid: 10687796
references.citation: Radiology. 2008 Oct;249(1):212-9
references.pmid: 18695212
references.citation: Circulation. 2000 Nov 28;102(22):2745-50
references.pmid: 11094042
references.citation: Echocardiography. 1999 Oct;16(7, Pt 2):743-746
references.pmid: 11175217
references.citation: Acc Chem Res. 2009 Jul 21;42(7):881-92
references.pmid: 19552457
references.citation: Ultrasound Med Biol. 2007 Sep;33(9):1376-88
references.pmid: 17521801
references.citation: Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002 Sep;28(9):1165-72
references.pmid: 12401387
references.citation: J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002 Oct;16(4):362-77
references.pmid: 12353252
references.citation: J Appl Physiol (1985). 1996 May;80(5):1568-73
references.pmid: 8727541
references.citation: Ultrasound Med Biol. 1998 Jun;24(5):739-49
references.pmid: 9695277
references.citation: Cancer Res. 2008 Sep 1;68(17):7042-9
references.pmid: 18757418
references.citation: Ultrasound Med Biol. 2006 Jun;32(6):961-9
references.pmid: 16785017
references.citation: Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2000;19(1-2):131-8
references.pmid: 11191052
references.citation: Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000 Jan;26(1):1-27
references.pmid: 10687788