Enhanced intracellular delivery of a model drug using microbubbles produced by a microfluidic device.

Focal drug delivery to a vessel wall facilitated by intravascular ultrasound and microbubbles holds promise as a potential therapy for atherosclerosis. Conventional methods of microbubble administration result in rapid clearance from the bloodstream and significant drug loss. To address these limitations, we evaluated whether drug delivery could be achieved with transiently stable microbubbles produced in real time and in close proximity to the therapeutic site. Rat aortic smooth muscle cells were placed in a flow chamber designed to simulate physiological flow conditions. A flow-focusing microfluidic device produced 8 μm diameter monodisperse microbubbles within the flow chamber, and ultrasound was applied to enhance uptake of a surrogate drug (calcein). Acoustic pressures up to 300 kPa and flow rates up to 18 mL/s were investigated. Microbubbles generated by the flow-focusing microfluidic device were stabilized with a polyethylene glycol-40 stearate shell and had either a perfluorobutane (PFB) or nitrogen gas core. The gas core composition affected stability, with PFB and nitrogen microbubbles exhibiting half-lives of 40.7 and 18.2 s, respectively. Calcein uptake was observed at lower acoustic pressures with nitrogen microbubbles (100 kPa) than with PFB microbubbles (200 kPa) (p < 0.05, n > 3). In addition, delivery was observed at all flow rates, with maximal delivery (>70% of cells) occurring at a flow rate of 9 mL/s. These results demonstrate the potential of transiently stable microbubbles produced in real time and in close proximity to the intended therapeutic site for enhancing localized drug delivery.

[1]  A. Kabalnov,et al.  Dissolution of multicomponent microbubbles in the bloodstream: 1. Theory. , 1998, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[2]  R. Esenaliev,et al.  Optimal drug and gene delivery in cancer cells by ultrasound-induced cavitation. , 2005, Anticancer research.

[3]  Cheri X Deng,et al.  Ultrasound-induced cell membrane porosity. , 2004, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[4]  P. Dayton,et al.  Experimental and theoretical evaluation of microbubble behavior: effect of transmitted phase and bubble size , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[5]  Y. Liu,et al.  Can ultrasound enable efficient intracellular uptake of molecules? A retrospective literature review and analysis. , 2012, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[6]  John E. Hall,et al.  Guyton and Hall Textbook of Medical Physiology , 2015 .

[7]  J. Hossack,et al.  A non-linear three-dimensional model for quantifying microbubble dynamics. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  John A Hossack,et al.  Focused Ultrasound-Mediated Drug Delivery From Microbubbles Reduces Drug Dose Necessary for Therapeutic Effect on Neointima Formation—Brief Report , 2011, Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology.

[9]  J. Hossack,et al.  Localized ultrasound enhances delivery of rapamycin from microbubbles to prevent smooth muscle proliferation. , 2011, Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society.

[10]  Douglas L. Miller,et al.  Transfection of a reporter plasmid into cultured cells by sonoporation in vitro. , 1997, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[11]  Alexander L. Klibanov,et al.  Ultrasound Contrast Agents: Development of the Field and Current Status , 2002 .

[12]  Eugenia Kumacheva,et al.  A microfluidic route to small CO2 microbubbles with narrow size distribution , 2010 .

[13]  B D Butler,et al.  The lung as a filter for microbubbles. , 1979, Journal of applied physiology: respiratory, environmental and exercise physiology.

[14]  Nico de Jong,et al.  Basic Acoustic Properties of Microbubbles , 2002, Echocardiography.

[15]  R. Kodzius,et al.  Fabrication of polystyrene microfluidic devices using a pulsed CO2 laser system , 2012 .

[16]  C. Deng,et al.  Spatiotemporally controlled single cell sonoporation , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Charles C. Church,et al.  The effects of an elastic solid surface layer on the radial pulsations of gas bubbles , 1995 .

[18]  George M. Whitesides,et al.  Formation of monodisperse bubbles in a microfluidic flow-focusing device , 2004 .

[19]  Yao-Sheng Tung,et al.  Microbubble-Size Dependence of Focused Ultrasound-Induced Blood–Brain Barrier Opening in Mice In Vivo , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[20]  J. Hossack,et al.  Production rate and diameter analysis of spherical monodisperse microbubbles from two-dimensional, expanding-nozzle flow-focusing microfluidic devices. , 2013, Biomicrofluidics.

[21]  Paul A Dayton,et al.  Tailoring the Size Distribution of Ultrasound Contrast Agents: Possible Method for Improving Sensitivity in Molecular Imaging , 2007, Molecular imaging.

[22]  John A Hossack,et al.  Dual frequency method for simultaneous translation and real-time imaging of ultrasound contrast agents within large blood vessels. , 2009, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[23]  M. Prausnitz,et al.  Ultrasound-mediated disruption of cell membranes. II. Heterogeneous effects on cells. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Nobuki Kudo,et al.  Modulation control over ultrasound-mediated gene delivery: evaluating the importance of standing waves. , 2010, Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society.

[25]  S. Zimmer,et al.  Transfection of mammalian cells with plasmid DNA by scrape loading and sonication loading. , 1987, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  David A. Weitz,et al.  A new device for the generation of microbubbles , 2004 .

[27]  Theo H Smit,et al.  Dynamic shear stress in parallel-plate flow chambers. , 2005, Journal of biomechanics.

[28]  Daniel M. Hallow,et al.  Measurement and correlation of acoustic cavitation with cellular bioeffects , 2004 .

[29]  A.F.W. van der Steen,et al.  Harmonic intravascular ultrasound imaging with a dual-frequency catheter , 2005 .

[30]  R. Powell,et al.  Needle size and injection rate impact microbubble contrast agent population. , 2008, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[31]  F. Moriyasu,et al.  Ultrasound contrast agent, Levovist microbubbles are phagocytosed by Kupffer cells-In vitro and in vivo studies. , 2006, Hepatology research : the official journal of the Japan Society of Hepatology.

[32]  J A Jensen,et al.  A model for the propagation and scattering of ultrasound in tissue. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  Paul A Dayton,et al.  Acoustic responses of monodisperse lipid-encapsulated microbubble contrast agents produced by flow focusing. , 2010, Bubble science engineering and technology.

[34]  D. Ku BLOOD FLOW IN ARTERIES , 1997 .

[35]  Robert J Eckersley,et al.  Evidence for spleen-specific uptake of a microbubble contrast agent: a quantitative study in healthy volunteers. , 2004, Radiology.

[36]  E. Geiser,et al.  Inhaled gases affect the ultrasound contrast produced by Albunex in anesthetized dogs. , 1996, Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography.

[37]  F. Bragheri,et al.  Optofluidic integrated cell sorter fabricated by femtosecond lasers. , 2012, Lab on a chip.

[38]  Thierry Bettinger,et al.  Plasma membrane poration induced by ultrasound exposure: implication for drug delivery. , 2005, Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society.

[39]  Paul A Dayton,et al.  Maintaining monodispersity in a microbubble population formed by flow-focusing. , 2008, Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids.

[40]  John A Hossack,et al.  Liquid flooded flow-focusing microfluidic device for in situ generation of monodisperse microbubbles , 2013, Microfluidics and nanofluidics.

[41]  Bruce K. Gale,et al.  Determining the optimal PDMS–PDMS bonding technique for microfluidic devices , 2008 .

[42]  Detlef Lohse,et al.  A model for large amplitude oscillations of coated bubbles accounting for buckling and rupture , 2005 .

[43]  Paul A Dayton,et al.  Improving Sensitivity in Ultrasound Molecular Imaging by Tailoring Contrast Agent Size Distribution: In Vivo Studies , 2010, Molecular imaging.

[44]  W. Krause Contrast Agents II , 2002 .

[45]  J. Gorce,et al.  Influence of Bubble Size Distribution on the Echogenicity of Ultrasound Contrast Agents: A Study of SonoVue™ , 2000, Investigative radiology.

[46]  J. Tavakkoli,et al.  Modeling of nonlinear ultrasound propagation in tissue from array transducers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[47]  Eleanor Stride,et al.  Novel preparation techniques for controlling microbubble uniformity: a comparison , 2009, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[48]  Katherine W Ferrara,et al.  Therapeutic effects of paclitaxel-containing ultrasound contrast agents. , 2006, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[49]  Paul A Dayton,et al.  On-chip generation of microbubbles as a practical technology for manufacturing contrast agents for ultrasonic imaging. , 2007, Lab on a chip.

[50]  J. Hossack,et al.  Focused in vivo Delivery of Plasmid DNA to the Porcine Vascular Wall via Intravascular Ultrasound Destruction of Microbubbles , 2009, Journal of Vascular Research.

[51]  Mark Borden,et al.  Ultrasound microbubble contrast agents: fundamentals and application to gene and drug delivery. , 2007, Annual review of biomedical engineering.

[52]  Vittorio Cristini,et al.  Monodispersed microfluidic droplet generation by shear focusing microfluidic device , 2006 .

[53]  Detlef Lohse,et al.  Microbubble generation in a co-flow device operated in a new regime. , 2011, Lab on a chip.

[54]  L. Dalla Palma,et al.  Introduction to ultrasound contrast agents: physics overview , 1999, European Radiology.