Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30531863›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Safety evaluation of frequent application of microbubble-enhanced focused ultrasound blood-brain-barrier opening.

Hong-Chieh Tsai, Chih-Hung Tsai, Wen-Shiang Chen, Claude Inserra, Kuo-Chen Wei, Hao-Li Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Precise antibody delivery to the brain via nanobubble-actuated focused ultrasound alleviates depression.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Biological profile of breast cancer brain metastasis.Acta neuropathologica communications · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hong-Chieh TsaiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Chih-Hung TsaiDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Chang-Gung University, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan.
Wen-Shiang ChenDepartment of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, 100, Taiwan.
Claude InserraLabTAU, INSERM, Centre Léon Bérard, Université Lyon 1, Univ Lyon, Lyon, F-69003, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5145-7068
Kuo-Chen WeiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan. kuochenwei@cgmh.org.tw.
Hao-Li LiuDepartment of Neurosurgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, 333, Taiwan. haoliliu@mail.cgu.edu.tw.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1541-1227

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (French National Research Agency) ANR-15CE19-0003Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou (Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital) CMRPG3E1911Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan) 105-2221-E-182-022Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan) 105-2923-B-002-001-MY3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Focused ultrasound (FUS) with the presence of microbubbles induces blood brain barrier (BBB) opening in targeted areas and facilitates drug delivery. However, recent studies have indicated that FUS-BBB opening with excessive exposure levels may be associated with inflammatory response and cellular/tissue damage. Multiple weekly FUS exposures have been shown to be safe for human subjects. However the effect of more frequent FUS exposures is still unknown. This study examines whether frequent focused ultrasound blood brain barrier opening is associated with aggravated behavioral, histopathologic change or brain tissue damage. Two protocols of focused ultrasound blood brain barrier opening were devised using different microbubble doses (0.15 µl/kg and 0.4 µl/kg). Focused ultrasound exposure at a threshold level of BBB-opening, below-threshold level, or above level for intracerebral hemorrhage were delivered every 2 days. Animal behavioral and physiological changes were examined and recorded. Brain tissue was examined for hemorrhage and apoptosis. Results indicate that frequent exposure of excessive focused ultrasound (1.4 mechanical index) produced minor and short-term behavioral changes despite significant tissue damage, while frequent BBB opening with threshold or below-threshold FUS exposure (0.33-0.8 mechanical index) did not cause behavioral or histological change. Immunofluorescent examination of rat brain tissue indicated that excessive doses of microbubble administration induce an apparent cellular apoptotic response, which may be exacerbated by intracerebral hemorrhage. Experimental results suggest that frequent focused ultrasound blood brain barrier opening with sufficient ultrasound exposure level and a microbubble dose can be safe and pose minimal risk to brain tissue.

Indexed as

AnimalsApoptosisBiological TransportBlood-Brain BarrierBrainColoring AgentsDrug Delivery SystemsHemorrhageMaleMicrobubblesRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyUltrasonographyColoring Agents

Identifiers

PMID30531863
PMCPMC6286368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.