Bronchial Thermoplasty by Application of Ultrasound EnergyLidia Sobkow1, Sajive Aleyas2, Matthew Pollman1, Dong Ik Shin1, Joerg Schulze-Clewing1, Tom Zimmerman3, Valery Matthys4, Jean Rooney3,Li Liu4 and Reinhard J. Warnking1*
4Center for Biotechnology, an Empire State Development Division of Science Technology and Innovation (NYSTAR) Center for Advanced Technology, Bioengineering Building, 2nd Floor, Stony Brook University,Stony Brook, NY, USA
- *Corresponding Author:
- Reinhard J. Warnking
Guided Interventions Inc
25 Health Sciences Dr. Stony Brook
NY 11790, USA
Tel: 001-631-839- 1774
E-mail: rwarnking@ guidedinterventions.com
Received date: July 21, 2014; Accepted date: October 15, 2015; Published date: October 19, 2015
Citation: Sobkow L, Aleyas S, Pollman M, Shin DI, Schulze-Clewing J, et al. (2015) Bronchial Thermoplasty by Application of Ultrasound Energy. J Pulm Respir Med 5:293. doi:10.4172/2161-105X.1000293
Copyright: © 2015 Sobkow L, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Background: Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of respiratory airways, typically marked by spasms in the bronchi of the lungs, causing difficulty in breathing. Although the disease is very well documented, therapies are limited and patients mostly undergo symptom management. Bronchial thermoplasty is a radiofrequency-based treatment for severe asthma approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2010 (Alair system, Boston Scientific Inc). Here we propose the use of ultrasound (US) energy to perform bronchial thermoplasty. Our hypothesis is that ultrasound affects bronchial smooth muscle at least as effective as radio-frequency (RF) but causes less collateral damage, and holds the potential to reduce the procedure time. In this publication we present a direct comparison of acute thermoplasty effects of RF energy versus ultrasound energy.
Objective: To evaluate a bronchoscopic procedure based on circumferential ultrasound energy and its effect on bronchial wall structures in comparison to RF thermoplasty for asthma treatment.
Methods: This is an observational study aiming for a direct comparison of an ultrasound system with existing asthma therapy based on radio-frequency. Mongrel dogs were used for optimization of ultrasound energy (300 J, 200 J, 100 J) with a 4.5 and 5.5 mm balloon catheter. 100 J was ultimately directly compared with RF effects on bronchial wall structures. Safety and efficacy of the ultrasound system was already previously established during renal denervation clinica stdies.
Results: 12 mongrel dogs were used. Bronchoscopy procedures were feasible in all cases, and no adverse effects were seen in any dogs. Lungs were collected for histology and H&E staining. With the optimized 100 J ultrasound energy we observed mild bronchial tissue injury, with minimal hemorrhage and preservation of respiratory epithelium. The RF catheter caused distinct focal injury points resulting from direct contact of the RF electrodes with bronchial wall tissue. Acute histological examination shows hemorrhagic injury along the RF energy path with significant necrosis to all bronchial wall elements including respiratory epithelium.
Conclusion: Ultrasound energy is safe, feasible, and at least as effective in affecting bronchoconstriction as RF energy offering a viable alternative to radiofrequency-based lung disease treatments.