Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology
Volume 33, Issue 2 , Pages 224-232 , February 2007

WFUMB safety symposium on echo-contrast agents: Mechanisms for the interaction of ultrasound

  • Wesley Nyborg, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: Wesley L. Nyborg, PhD, Department of Physics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405 USA.

References 

  1. AIUM. Mechanical bioeffects from diagnostic ultrasound: AIUM consensus statements. In:  Fowlkes JB,  Holland CK editor. J Ultrasound Med. 2000;p. 69–16819
  2. AIUM/NEMA. Acoustic output measuring and labeling standard for diagnostic ultrasound equipment. Laurel, MD: American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine; 1992;
  3. ANSI. Bubble detection and cavitation monitoring (ANSI Technical Report S1.24 TR-2002). New York: Acoustical Society of America; 2002;
  4. Apfel RE, Holland CK. Gauging the likelihood of cavitation from short-pulse, low-duty-cycle diagnostic ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1991;17:179–185
  5. Bleeker HJ, Shung KK, Barnhart JL. Ultrasonic characterization of Albunex©, a new contrast agent. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990;87:1792–1797
  6. Brayman AA, Miller MW. Cell density dependence of the ultrasonic degassing of fixed erythrocyte suspensions. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1993;19:243–250
  7. Carstensen EL, Gracewski S, Dalecki D. The search for cavitation in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000;26:1377–1385
  8. Chang PP, Chen W-S, Mourad PD, Poliachik SL, Crum LA. Thresholds for inertial cavitation in Albunex© suspensions under pulsed ultrasound conditions. IEEE UFFC. 2001;48:161–169
  9. Chen Q, Zagzebski J, Wilson T, Stiles T. Pressure-dependent attenuation in ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002;28:1041–1042
  10. Chomas JCE, Dayton P, Allen J, Morgan K, Ferrara KW. Mechanisms of contrast agent destruction. IEEE UFFC. 2001;48:232–248
  11. Chomas J, Dayton P, Donovan M, Ferrara K. Threshold of fragmentation for ultrasonic contrast agents. J Biomed. Optics. 2001;141–150b;g:
  12. Chomas J, Dayton P, Donovan M, Ferrara K. Nondestructive subharmonic imaging. IEEE Trans UFFC. 2002;49:883–892
  13. Church CC, Brayman AA. Can the presence of contrast media promote ultrasound bioeffects?. In:  Thomsen HS,  Muller RN,  Matterey RF editor. Trends in contrast media. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1998;p. 413–432
  14. Church CC, Carstensen EL. “Stable” inertial cavitation. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001;27:1435–1437
  15. Coakley WT, Nyborg WL. Cavitation: Dynamics of gas bubbles; applications. In:  Fry FJ editors. Ultrasound: Its applications in medicine and biology. New York: Elsevier Publishing Co; 1978;p. 77–159
  16. Dayton PA, Morgan KE, Klibanov AL, Brandenburger G, Nightingale KR, Ferrara KW. A preliminary evaluation of the effects of primary and secondary radiation forces on acoustic contrast agents. IEEE Trans UFFC. 1997;44:1264–1277
  17. Dayton PA, Klibanov A, Brandenburger G, Ferrara K. Acoustic radiation force in vivo: A mechanism to assist targeting of microbubbles. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1999;25:1195–1201
  18. Dayton PA, Morgan KE, Klibanov KL, Brandenburger GH, Ferrara KW. Optical and acoustical observations of the effects of ultrasound on contrast agents. IEEE Trans UFFC. 1999;46:220–232
  19. Dayton PA, Chomas JE, Lunn AFH, et al. Optical and acoustical dynamics of microbubble contrast agents inside neutrophils. Biophysical J. 2001;80:1547–1556
  20. de Jong N. Acoustic properties of ultrasound contrast agents. Ph. D. thesis, Erasmus University 1993.
  21. de Jong N, Ten Cate FJ, Lancée CT, Roelandt JRTC, Bom N. Principles and recent developments in ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasonics. 1991;29:324–330
  22. Deng CX, Lizzi FL. A review of physical phenomena associated with ultrasonic contrast agents and illustrative clinical applications. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002;28:177–286
  23. Duck FA. Physical properties of tissue. London: Academic Press; 1990;
  24. Dunn F. Cellular inactivation by heat and shear. Radiat Environ Biophys. 1985;24:131–139
  25. Everbach EC, Makin IR, Azadniv M, Meltzer RS. Correlation of ultrasound-induced hemolysis with cavitation detector output in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1997;23:619–624
  26. Flynn HG. Physics of acoustic cavitation in liquids. In:  Mason WP editors. Physical acoustics: Principles and methods. Vol. 1:New York: Academic Press; 1964;p. 57–172
  27. Flynn HG. Cavitation dynamics (II. Free pulsations and models for cavitation bubbles). J Acoust Soc Am. 1975;58:1160–1170
  28. Frinking PJA, de Jong N, Céspero EI. Scattering properties of encapsulated gas bubbles at high ultrasound pressures. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999;105:1989–1996
  29. Hilgenfeldt S, Lohse D, Zomack M. Sound scattering and localized heat deposition of pulse-driven microbubbles. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;107:3530–3539
  30. Holt RG, Roy RA. Measurements of bubble-enhanced heating from focused, MHz-frequency ultrasound in a tissue-mimicking material. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001;27:1399–1412
  31. Kudo N, Miyaoka T, Okada K, Yamamoto K, Niwa K. Study on mechanism of cell damage caused by microbubbles exposed to ultrasound. Proc. 2002 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium 1351–1354. ISBN No. 0-7803-7583-1.
  32. Leighton TL. The acoustic bubble. London: Academic Press; 1994;
  33. Marsh JA, Hall CS, Hughes MS, Mobley J, Miller JG, Brandenburger GH. Broadband through-transmission signal loss measurements of Albunex© suspensions at concentrations approaching in vivo doses. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997;101:1155–1161
  34. May DJ, Allen JS, Ferrara KW. Dynamics and fragmentation of thick-shelled microbubbles. IEEE Trans Ultrasound Ferroelec Freq Contr. 2002;49:1400–1410
  35. Medwin H. Counting bubbles acoustically: A review. Ultrasonics. 1977;15:7–13
  36. Miller DL. Particle gathering and microstreaming near ultrasonically activated gas-filled micropores. J Acoust Soc Am. 1988;84:1378–1387
  37. Miller DL. Frequency relationships for ultrasonic activation of free microbubbles, encapsulated microbubbles and gas-filled micropores. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;104:2498–2505
  38. Miller DL, Gies RA. Gas-body-based contrast agent enhances vascular bioeffects of 1.09 MHz ultrasound on mouse intestine. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1998;24:1201–1208
  39. Miller DL, Thomas RM, Williams AR. Mechanisms for hemolysis by ultrasonic cavitation in the rotating exposure system. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1991;17:171–178
  40. Miller DL, Quddus J. Diagnostic ultrasound-induced membrane damage in phagocytic cells loaded with contrast agents and its relation to Doppler-mode images. IEEE UFFC. 2002;49:1094–1102
  41. NCRP. Biological effects of ultrasound: mechanisms and clinical implications (National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements Report No. 74). Bethesda, Md: NCRP Publications; 1983;
  42. NCRP. Exposure criteria for medical diagnostic ultrasound: I. Criteria based on thermal mechanisms. National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements Report No. 113. Bethesda, Md: NCRP Publications; 1992;
  43. NCRP. Exposure criteria for medical diagnostic ultrasound: II. Criteria based on all known mechanisms. National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurements Report No. 140, Section 3.3. Bethesda, Md: NCRP Publications; 2002;
  44. Nyborg WL, Miller DL. Biophysical implications of bubble dynamics. Appl Sci Res. 1982;38:17–24
  45. Plesset MS, Mitchell TP. On the stability of the spherical shape of a vapor cavity in a liquid. Quarterly Appl Math. 1956;13:419–430
  46. Rayleigh , Lord . On the pressure developed in a liquid during the collapse of a spherical cavity. Phil Mag. 1917;34:94–98
  47. Shi WT, Forsberg F, Tornes A, Ostensen J, Goldberg BB. Destruction of contrast microbubbles and the association with inertial cavitation. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000;26:1009–1019
  48. Sokka SD, King R, Hynynen K. MRI-guided gas bubble enhanced ultrasound heating in in vivo rabbit thigh. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:223–241
  49. Starritt HC. Non-thermal effects—acoustic streaming and other radiation stress effects. In:  ter Haar G,  Duck FA editor. The safe use of ultrasound in medical diagnosis. London: The British Medical Ultrasound Society/The British Institute of Radiology; 2000;p. 54–61
  50. Stride E, Saffari N. On the destruction of microbubble ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2003;29:563–573
  51. Suslick KS, Kemper KA. The effect of fluorocarbon gases on sonoluminescence: A failure of the electrical hypothesis. Ultrasonics. 1993;31:463–465
  52. Uhlendorf V, Scholle F-D, Reinhardt M. Acoustic behaviour of current ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasonics. 2000;38:81–86
  53. Umemura S, Kawabata K, Sanghvi N, Sasaki K. In vivo acceleration of ultrasonic tissue heating by microbubble agent. Proc 2002 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium. 1375–1378. ISBN No. 0-7803-7583-1.
  54. Watmough DJ, Lakshmi R, Ghezzi F, et al. The effect of gas bubbles on the production of ultrasound hyperthermia at 0.75 MHz: A phantom study. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1993;19:231–241
  55. WFUMB. WFUMB Symposium on Safety of Ultrasound in Medicine. In:  Barnett SB editors. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1998;p. S1–S5824 (Suppl 1):V-XVI
  56. Wu J, Winkler AJ, O’Neill TP. Effect of acoustic streaming on ultrasonic heating. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1994;20:195–201
  57. Wu J. Temperature rise generated by ultrasound in the presence of contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1998;24:267–274
  58. Wu J. Theoretical study on shear stress generated by microstreaming surrounding contrast agents attached to living cells. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2002;28:125–129
  59. Wu J, Pepe J, Dewitt W. Nonlinear behaviours of contrast agents relevant to diagnostic and therapeutic applications. Ultrasonics. 2003;29:555–562
  60. Young FR. Cavitation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1989;

PII: S0301-5629(06)01734-0

doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.07.006

Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology
Volume 33, Issue 2 , Pages 224-232 , February 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution