Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33024157›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Consistent opening of the blood brain barrier using focused ultrasound with constant intravenous infusion of microbubble agent.

Norman A Lapin, Kirt Gill, Bhavya R Shah, Rajiv Chopra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. CMUT as a Transmitter for Microbubble-Assisted Blood-Brain Barrier Opening.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

4 authors.

Norman A LapinFocused Ultrasound Laboratory, Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.
Kirt GillFocused Ultrasound Laboratory, Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.
Bhavya R ShahFocused Ultrasound Laboratory, Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA.
Rajiv ChopraFocused Ultrasound Laboratory, Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA. Rajiv.Chopra@utsouthwestern.edu.

Funding

Image-guided doxorubicin delivery for pediatric sarcomasR01CA199937 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI CHOPRA, RAJIV, LAETSCH, THEODORE WILLIS · 2015 to 2019
$2.8M
Training Clinician Scientists as Outstanding Clinicians and Imaging ScientistsT32EB028093 · NIBIB · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI ROBERT F MATTREY, Takeshi Yokoo · 2019 to 2026
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA199937NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB028093NIH HHS 1R01CA199937NIH HHS T32EB028093
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The blood brain barrier (BBB) is a major obstacle to the delivery of therapeutics to the brain. Focused ultrasound (FUS) in combination with microbubbles can non-invasively open the BBB in a targeted manner. Bolus intravenous injections of microbubbles are standard practice, but dynamic influx and clearance mechanisms prevent delivery of a uniform dose with time. When multiple targets are selected for sonication in a single treatment, uniform serum concentrations of microbubbles are important for consistent BBB opening. Herein, we show that bubble infusions were able to achieve consistent BBB opening at multiple target sites. FUS exposures were conducted with different Definity microbubble concentrations at various acoustic pressures. To quantify the effects of infusion on BBB opening, we calculated the MRI contrast enhancement rate. When infusions were performed at rates of 7.2 µl microbubbles/kg/min or below, we were able to obtain consistent BBB opening without injury at all pressures. However, when infusion rates exceeded 20 µl/kg/min, signs of injury occurred at pressures from 0.39 to 0.56 MPa. When compared to bolus injections, a bubble infusion offers a more controlled and consistent approach to multi-target BBB disruption.

Indexed as

MicrobubblesUltrasonic WavesAnimalsBlood-Brain BarrierDrug Delivery SystemsFemaleHumansInjections, IntravenousMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiceSonication

Identifiers

PMID33024157
PMCPMC7538995

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.