Bubble dynamics involved in ultrasonic imaging

References

• Webb A. Chapter 3: Ultrasonic imaging. In: Introduction to Biomedical Imaging. John Wiley & Sons, NJ, USA, 107–156 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Pierce AD. Acoustics: An Introduction to Its Physical Principles and Applications. Acoustical Society of America, NY, USA, 424–430 (1989).
   Google Scholar
• Schmitz G. Ultrasound in medical diagnosis. In: Scattering: Scattering and Inverse Scattering in Pure and Applied Science. Pike R, Sabatier P (Eds), Academic Press, London, UK, 162–174 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Schutt EG, Klein DH, Mattrey RM, Riess JG. Injectable microbubbles as contrast agents for diagnostic ultrasound imaging: the key role of perfluorochemicals. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.42, 3218–3235 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel DN, Bloch SH, Dayton PA, Ferrara KW. Acoustic signatures of submicron contrast agents. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control51(3), 293–301 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong N. Acoustic properties of ultrasound contrast agents. PhD Thesis, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Krestan C. Ultraschallkontrastmittel: Substanzklassen, Pharmakokinetik, klinische Anwendungen, Sicherheitsaspekte. Radiologe45, 513–519 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bouakaz A, Frinking PJA, de Jong N, Bom N. Noninvasive measurement of the hydrostatic pressure in a fluid-filled cavity based on the disappearance time of micrometer-sized free gas bubbles. Ultrasound Med. Biol.25(9), 1407–1415 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Postema MAB. Medical Bubbles. PhD Thesis, Universiteit Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Gorce JM, Arditi M, Schneider M. Influence of bubble size distribution on the echogenicity of ultrasound contrast agents: a study of SonoVueTM. Invest. Radiol.35(11), 661–671 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postema M, de Jong N, Schmitz G. Nonlinear behavior of ultrasound-insonified encapsulated microbubbles. Proc. 17th Int. Symp. Nonlinear Acoustics (2005) (In Press).
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald CA, Sboros V, Gomatam J, Pye SD, Moran CM, McDicken WN. A numerical investigation of the resonance of gas-filled microbubbles: resonance dependence on acoustic pressure amplitude. Ultrasonics43, 113–122 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guan J, Matula TJ. Using light scattering to measure the response of individual ultrasound contrast microbubbles subjected to pulsed ultrasound in vitro. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.116(5), 2832–2842 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sarkar K, Shi WT, Chatterjee D, Forsberg F. Characterization of ultrasound contrast microbubbles using in vitro experiments and viscous and viscoelastic interface models for encapsulation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.118(1), 539–550 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tickner EG. The Resonant Frequency of a Bubble with a Thin, Surrounding Membrane. Technical report, POINT Biomedical Corp., CA, USA, 1–7 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Fisher NG, Christiansen JP, Klibanov A, Taylor RP, Kaul S, Lindner JR. Influence of microbubble surface charge on capillary transit and myocardial contrast enhancement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.40(4), 811–819 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lathia JD, Leodore L, Wheatley MA. Polymeric contrast agent with targeting potential. Ultrasonics42, 763–768 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao S, Borden M, Bloch SH, Kruse D, Ferrara KW, Dayton PA. Radiation-force assisted targeting facilitates ultrasonic molecular imaging. Mol. Imaging3(3), 135–148 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tortoli P, Boni E, Corsi M, Arditi M, Frinking P. Different effects of microbubble destruction and translation in Doppler measurements. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control52(7), 1183–1188 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zheng H, Mukdadi O, Shandas R. Theoretical predicitions of harmonic generation from submicron ultrasound contrast agents for nonlinear biomedical ultrasound imaging. Phys. Med. Biol.51, 557–573 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frinking PJA, de Jong N. Acoustic modeling of shell-encapsulated gas bubbles. Ultrasound Med. Biol.24(4), 523–533 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forsberg F, Goldberg BB, Liu JB, Merton DA, Rawool NM, Shi WT. Tissue-specific US contrast agent for evaluation of hepatic and splenic parenchyma. Radiology210, 125–132 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sontum PC, Østensen J, Dyrstad K, Hoff L. Acoustic properties of NC100100 (SonazoidTM) and their relationship with the microbubble size distribution: motivation for choice of assay and dosage parameter. Proc. IEEE Ultrason. Symp.1743–1748 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Heckemann RA, Harvey CJ, Blomley MJK et al. Enhancement characteristics of the microbubble agent Levovist: reproducibility and interaction with aspirin. Eur. J. Radiol.41, 179–183 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Camarano G, Jones M, Freidlin RZ, Panza JA. Quantitative assessment of left ventricular perfusion defects using real-time three-dimensional myocardial contrast echocardiography. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr.15(3), 206–213 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lindner JR. Microbubbles in medical imaging: current applications and future directions. Nature Rev. Drug Discov.3, 527–532 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller AP, Nanda NC. Contrast echocardiography: new agents. Ultrasound Med. Biol.30(4), 425–434 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yang L. Real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography and its applications in evaluation for coronary artery disease. Chin. Med. J.117(9), 1388–1394 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raisinghani A, Rafter P, Phillips P, Vannan MA, DeMaria AN. Microbubble contrast agents for echocardiography: rationale, composition, ultrasound interactions, and safety. Cardiol. Clin.22, 171–180 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollmann C, Putzer M. Ultraschallkontrastmittel – physikalische Grundlagen. Radiologe45(6), 503–512 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Becher H, Burns PN. Chapter 1: Contrast agents for echocardiography. In: Handbook of Contrast Echocardiography: LV Function and Myocardial Perfusion. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1–44 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Heynemann H, Jenderka KV, Zacharias M, Fornara P. Neue Techniken der Urosonographie. Urologe43, 1362–1370 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Droste DW, Kaps M, Navabi DG, Ringelstein EB. Ultrasound contrast enhancing agents in neurosonology: principles, methods, future possibilities. Acta Neurol. Scand.102, 1–10 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilkening WG. Konzepte zur Signalverarbeitung für die kontrastmittelspezifische Ultraschallabbildung. PhD Thesis, RuhrHUniversität Bochum, Bochum, Germany (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Mischi M, Jansen AHM, Kalker AACM, Korsten HHM. Identification of ultrasound contrast agent dilution systems for ejection fraction measurements. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control52(3), 410–420 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sidhu PS. Microbubbles are here to burst! Radiol. Now20, 2–3 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Heppner P, Lindner JR. Contrast ultrasound assessment of angiogenesis by perfusion and molecular imaging. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn.5(3), 447–455 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sboros V, Pye SD, MacDonald CA, Gomatam J, Moran CM, McDicken WN. Absolute measurement of ultrasonic backscatter from single microbubbles. Ultrasound Med. Biol.31(8), 1063–1072 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Jong N, Frinking PJ, Bouakaz A et al. Optical imaging of contrast agent microbubbles in an ultrasound field with a 100-MHz camera. Ultrasound Med. Biol.26(3), 487–492 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan KE, Allen JS, Dayton PA, Chomas JE, Klibanov AL, Ferrara KW. Experimental and theoretical evaluation of microbubble behavior: effect of transmitted phase and bubble size. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control47(6), 1494–1509 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chomas JE, Dayton P, May D, Ferrara K. Threshold of fragmentation for ultrasonic contrast. J. Biomed. Opt.6(2), 141–150 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Church CC. The effects of an elastic solid surface layer on the radial pulsations of gas bubbles. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.97(3), 1510–1521 (1995).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganor Y, Adam D, Kimmel E. Time and pressure dependence of acoustic signals radiated from microbubbles. Ultrasound Med. Biol.31(10), 1367–1374 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stride E, Saffari N. On the destruction of microbubble ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasound Med. Biol.29(4), 563–573 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marmottant P, van der Meer S, Versluis M, de Jong N, Hilgenfeldt S, Lohse D. A model for large amplitude oscillations of coated bubbles accounting for buckling and rupture. 10th Eur. Symp. Ultrasound Contrast Imaging23–33 (2005) (Abstract).
   Google Scholar
• Stride E, Saffari N. Theoretical and experimental investigation of the behaviour of ultrasound contrast agent particles in whole blood. Ultrasound Med. Biol.30(11), 1495–1509 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong N, Bouakaz A, Frinking P. Basic acoustic properties of microbubbles. Echocardiography19(3), 229–240 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postema M, de Jong N, Schmitz G. The physics of nanoshelled microbubbles. Biomed. Tech.50(S1), 748–749 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Young FR. Cavitation. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, UK, 8–186 (1989).
   Google Scholar
• Shi WT, Forsberg F, Raichlen JS, Needleman L, Goldberg BB. Pressure dependence of subharmonic signals from contrast microbubbles. Ultrasound Med. Biol.25(2), 275–283 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frinking PJA. Technological review of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. In: Contrast-Enhanced General Purpose Ultrasound. Albrecht T, D’Onofrio M, Frauscher F et al. (Eds.), Springer-Verlag, Milan, Italy, 1–8 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg F, Shi WT, Goldberg BB. Subharmonic imaging of contrast agents. Ultrasonics38, 93–98 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goertz DE, Cherin E, Needles A et al. High frequency nonlinear B-scan imaging of microbubble contrast agents. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control52(1), 65–79 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christopher T. Finite amplitude distortion-based inhomogeneous pulse echo ultrasonic imaging. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control44(1), 125–139 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eckersley RJ, Chin CT, Burns PN. Optimising phase and amplitude modulation schemes for imaging microbubble contrast agents at low acoustic power. Ultrasound Med. Biol.31(2), 213–219 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hope Simpson D, Chin CT, Burns PN. Pulse inversion Doppler: a new method for detecting nonlinear echoes from microbubble contrast agents. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control46(2), 372–382 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hope Simpson D. Detecting and Imaging Microbubble Contrast Agents With Ultrasound. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Borsboom JMG. Advanced Detection Strategies for Ultrasound Contrast Agents. PhD Thesis, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Chin CT. Modelling the Behaviour of Microbubble Contrast Agents for Diagnostic Ultrasound. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Zheng H, Mukdadi O, Kim H, Hertzberg JR, Shandas R. Advantages in using multifrequency excitation of contrast microbubbles for enhancing echo particle image velocity techniques: initial numerical studies using rectangular and triangular waves. Ultrasound Med. Biol.31(1), 99–108 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postema M, Bouakaz A, Chin CT, de Jong N. Optical observations of ultrasound contrast agent destruction. Acta Acust. United Acust.89, 728 (2003) (Abstract).
   Google Scholar
• Yeh CK. Ultrasonic Quantitative Blood Flow Estimation. PhD Thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Bloch SH, Wan M, Dayton PA, Ferrara KW. Optical observation of lipid- and polymer-shelled ultrasound microbubble contrast agents. Appl. Phys. Lett.84(4), 631–633 (2004).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prentice P, Cuschieri A, Dholakia K, Prausnitz M, Campbell P. Membrane disruption by optically controlled microbubble cavitation. Nature Phys.1, 107–110 (2005).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ammi AY, Cleveland RO, Mamou J, Wang GI, Bridal SL, O’Brien Jr WD. Shelled ultrasound contrast agent rupture identification by inertial cavitation and rebound signals. Ultrasonic Imaging26(4), 257–258 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Moran CM, Anderson T, Pye SD, Sboros V, McDicken WN. Quantification of microbubble destruction of three fluorocarbon-filled ultrasonic contrast agents. Ultrasound Med. Biol.26(4), 629–639 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biagi E, Breschi L, Masotti L. Transient subharmonic and ultraharmonic acoustic emission during dissolution of free gas microbubbles. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control52(6), 1048–1054 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Adam D, Sapunar M, Burla E. On the relationship between encapsulated ultrasound contrast agent and pressure. Ultrasound Med. Biol.31(5), 673–686 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Canadian Institute for Health Information.Medical imaging in Canada. Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ontario, Canada (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Christiansen JP, Leong-Poi H, Klibanov AL, Kaul S, Lindner JR. Noninvasive imaging of myocardial reperfusion injury using leukocyte-targeted contrast echocardiography. Circulation105, 1764–1767 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May D, Allen J, Gut J, Ferrara K. Acoustic fragmentation of therapeutic contrast agents designed for localized drug delivery. Proc. IEEE Ultrason. Symp.1385–1388 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Shortencarier MJ, Dayton PA, Bloch SH, Schumann PA, Matsunaga TO, Ferrara KW. A method for radiation-force localized drug delivery using gas-filled lipospheres. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control51(7), 822–831 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Postema M, Bouakaz A, ten Cate F, Schmitz G, de Jong N, van Wamel A. Nitric oxide delivery by ultrasonic cracking: some limitations. Ultrasonics (2006) (In Press).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reimer P, Balzer T. Ferucarbotran (Resovist): a new clinically approved RES-specific contrast agent for contrast-enhanced MRI of the liver: properties, clinical development, and applications. Eur. Radiol.13, 1266–1276 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deutsche Gesellschaft für Biomedizinische Technik, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ultraschall in der Medizin, DRG Deutsche Röntgengesellschaft e.V. Ultraschall in der Medizin: Grundlegende Aspekte zur sicheren Anwendung von Ultraschall in der Diagnostik. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Biomedizinische Technik im VDE, Frankfurt am Main, Germany (2004).
   Google Scholar