ArticleJournal of therapeutic ultrasound2015
Quantitative assessment of damage during MCET: a parametric study in a rodent model.
Article in Journal of therapeutic ultrasound, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Overview of Therapeutic Ultrasound Applications and Safety Considerations: 2024 Update.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025Review
- Leveraging the Imaging Transmit Pulse to Manipulate Phase-Change Nanodroplets for Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2019Article
- Ultrasonic Cavitation-Enabled Treatment for Therapy of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Proof of Principle.Ultrasound in medicine & biology · 2018Article
- Multiple ultrasound cavitation-enabled treatments for myocardial reduction.Journal of therapeutic ultrasound · 2017Article
- Maturation of Lesions Induced by Myocardial Cavitation-Enabled Therapy.Ultrasound in medicine & biology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMyocardial cavitation-enabled therapy (MCET) has been proposed as a means to achieve minimally invasive myocardial reduction using ultrasound to produce scattered microlesions by cavitating contrast agent microbubbles.
methodsRats were treated using burst mode focused ultrasound at 1.5 MHz center frequency and varying envelope and pressure amplitudes. Evans blue staining indicated lethal cardiomyocytic injury. A previously developed quantitative scheme, evaluating the histologic treatment results, provides an insightful analysis for MCET treatment parameters. Such include ultrasound exposure amplitude and pulse modulation, contrast agent dose, and infusion rate.
resultsThe quantitative method overcomes the limitation of visual scoring and works for a large dynamic range of treatment impact. Macrolesions are generated as an accumulation of probability driven microlesion formations. Macrolesions grow radially with radii from 0.1 to 1.6 mm as the ultrasound exposure amplitude (peak negative) increases from 2 to 4 MPa. To shorten treatment time, a swept beam was investigated and found to generate an acceptable macrolesion volume of about 40 μL for a single beam position.
conclusionsUltrasound parameters and administration of microbubbles directly influence lesion characteristics such as microlesion density and macrolesion dimension. For lesion generation planning, control of MCET is crucial, especially when targeting larger pre-clinical models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.