ArticleJournal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR2026
Hepatic Histotripsy after Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound: Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy in an In Vivo Swine Model.
Article in Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the safety and efficacy of performing histotripsy after ultrasound (US) contrast administration, which potentially lowers cavitation threshold in tissue. MATERIALS AND
methodsSix healthy female swine (mean age, 14.25 weeks; weight, 52.3 kg) each underwent 2 histotripsy treatments (2.0 cm) of the liver, 1 before US contrast (2.4 mL, Lumason) administration (control) and the other 10 minutes after contrast administration (post-contrast-enhanced US [CEUS]). US (intraprocedural B-mode and posttreatment CEUS), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and gross necropsy were used to assess off-target damage to determine safety. Efficacy was assessed by comparing planned and actual treatment zone dimensions on posttreatment MR imaging and by confirming histologic cell death. Data were analyzed using a paired, 1-sided t-test (α = 0.05) and Bland-Altman analysis.
resultsAll 12 treatments were well demarcated and visible on posttreatment CEUS and MR imaging. No off-target damage was noted during treatment or necropsy. One post-CEUS treatment was associated with mild T2 hyperintensity in the abdominal wall adjacent to the treatment zone without an identifiable pathologic correlate. Secondary and tertiary portal or hepatic thromboses were observed in 5 of 6 post-CEUS treatments and all 6 control treatments. No significant difference in mean diameter was observed between control and post-CEUS treatments (P = .31, P = .79, and P = .96, for anteroposterior, transverse, and craniocaudal dimensions, respectively). Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of ≤2 mm across all dimensions. Complete cellular destruction was observed within all histotripsy treatment zones, regardless of exposure to US contrast before treatment.
conclusionsIn this in vivo swine model, hepatic histotripsy after contrast-enhanced US was as safe and effective as treatment without any prior US contrast.
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.