Ultrasound imaging and contrast agents: A safe alternative to MRI?

References

• Gramiak R., Shah P. M. Echocardiography of the aortic root. Invest Radiol 1968; 3: 356–66
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barnett S. B., Rott H. D., ter Haar G. R., Ziskin M. C., et al. The sensitivity of biological tissue to ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 1997; 23: 805–12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnett S. B., ter Haar G. R., Ziskin M. C., Rott H. D., et al. International recommendations and guidelines for the safe use of diagnostic ultrasound in medicine. Ultrasound Med Biol 2000; 26: 355–66
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salvesen K. A. EFSUMB: safety tutorial: epidemiology of diagnostic ultrasound exposure during pregnancy‐European committee for medical ultrasound safety (ECMUS). Eur J Ultrasound 2002; 15: 165–71
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Church C. C. Spontaneous homogeneous nucleation, inertial cavitation and the safety of diagnostic ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002; 28: 1349–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn H. G. Generation of transient cavities in liquids by microsecond pulses of ultrasound. J Acoustic Soc Am 1982; 72: 1926–32
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deng C. X., Xu Q., Apfel R. E., Holland C. K. In vitro measurements of inertial cavitation thresholds in human blood. Ultrasound Med Biol 1996; 22: 939–48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carstensen E. L., Gracewski S., Dalecki D. The search for cavitation in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol 2000; 26: 1377–85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyborg W. L. Biological effects of ultrasound: development of safety guidelines. Part II: general review. Ultrasound Med Biol 2001; 27: 301–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abramowicz J. S., Kossoff G., Marsal K., Ter H. G. Safety Statement, 2000 (reconfirmed 2003). International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyborg W. L. Safety of medical diagnostic ultrasound. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2002; 23: 377–86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbott J. G. Rationale and derivation of MI and TI–a review. Ultrasound Med Biol 1999; 25: 431–41
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Apfel R. E., Holland C. K. Gauging the likelihood of cavitation from short‐pulse, low‐duty cycle diagnostic ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 1991; 17: 179–85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong N. Mechanical index. Eur J Echocardiogr 2002; 3: 73–4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de Jong N., Bouakaz A., Frinking P. Basic acoustic properties of microbubbles. Echocardiography 2002; 19: 229–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Jong N., Cornet R., Lancee C. T. Higher Harmonics of Vibrating Gas‐Filled Microspheres .1. Simulations. Ultrasonics 1994; 32: 447–53
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frinking P. J. A., de Jong N., Cespedes E. Scattering properties of encapsulated gas bubbles at high ultrasound pressures. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1999; 105: 1989–96
   Google Scholar
• Verbeek X. A. A. M., Willigers J. M., Brands P. J., Ledoux L. A. F., et al. Measurement of the contrast agent intrinsic and native harmonic response with single transducer pulse waved ultrasound systems. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 1999; 27: 670–81
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Burns P. N. Harmonic imaging with ultrasound contrast agents. Clinical Radiology 1996; 51: 50–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi W. T., Forsberg F. Ultrasonic characterization of the nonlinear properties of contrast microbubbles. Ultrasound Med Biol 2000; 26: 93–104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forsberg F., Liu J. B., Chiou H. J., Rawool N. M., et al. Comparison of fundamental and wideband harmonic contrast imaging of liver tumors. Ultrasonics 2000; 38: 110–3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tiemann K., Lohmeier S., Kuntz S., Koster J., et al. Real‐time contrast echo assessment of myocardial perfusion at low emission power: First experimental and clinical results using power pulse inversion imaging. Echocardiography‐A Journal of Cardiovascular Ultrasound and Allied Techniques 1999; 16: 799–809
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrecht T., Hoffmann C. W., Schmitz S. A., Schettler S., et al. Phase‐inversion sonography during the liver‐specific late phase of contrast enhancement: Improved detection of liver metastases. American Journal of Roentgenology 2001; 176: 1191–8
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lencioni R., Cioni D., Bartolozzi C. Tissue harmonic and contrast‐specific imaging: back to gray scale in ultrasound. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 151–65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips P., Gardner E. Contrast‐agent detection and quantification. Eur Radiol 2004; 14((Suppl 8))4–10
   Google Scholar
• Bouakaz A., Krenning B. J., Vletter W. B., ten Cate F. J., et al. Contrast superharmonic imaging: A feasibility study. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 2003; 29: 547–53
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jakobsen J. A., Oyen R., Thomsen H. S., Morcos S. K. Safety of ultrasound contrast agents. Eur Radiol 2005; 15: 941–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrecht T., Blomley M., Bolondi L., Claudon M., et al. Guidelines for the use of contrast agents in ultrasound. January 2004. Ultraschall Med 2004; 25: 249–56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Correas J. M., Bridal L., Lesavre A., Mejean A., et al. Ultrasound contrast agents: properties, principles of action, tolerance, and artifacts. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 1316–28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlief R., Alhassan A., Wiggins J., Schumann W., et al. Safety of the galactose‐based ultrasound contrast agent levovist. Academic Radiology 2002; 9: S240–2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cohen J. L., Cheirif J., Segar D. S., Gillam L. D., et al. Improved left ventricular endocardial border delineation and opacification with OPTISON (FS069), a new echocardiographic contrast agent – Results of a phase III multicenter trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 1998; 32: 746–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bokor D., Chambers J. B., Rees P. J., Mant T. G., et al. Clinical safety of SonoVue, a new contrast agent for ultrasound imaging, in healthy volunteers and in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Invest Radiol 2001; 36: 104–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller D. L., Thomas R. M. Ultrasound Contrast Agents Nucleate Inertial Cavitation In‐Vitro. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 1995; 21: 1059–65
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland C. K., Apfel R. E. Thresholds for Transient Cavitation Produced by Pulsed Ultrasound in A Controlled Nuclei Environment. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1990; 88: 2059–69
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brayman A. A., Church C. C., Miller M. W. Re‐evaluation of the concept that high cell concentrations “protect” cells in vitro from ultrasonically induced lysis. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 1996; 22: 497–514
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shi W. T., Forsberg F., Tornes A., Ostensen J., et al. Destruction of contrast microbubbles and the association with inertial cavitation. Ultrasound Med Biol 2000; 26: 1009–19
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Poliachik S. L., Chandler W. L., Mourad P. D., Bailey M. R., et al. Effect of high‐intensity focused ultrasound on whole blood with and without microbubble contrast agent. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 1999; 25: 991–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Everbach E. C., Makin I. R. S., Francis C. W., Meltzer R. S. Effect of acoustic cavitation on platelets in the presence of an echo‐contrast agent. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 1998; 24: 129–36
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miller D. L., Gies R. A. Enhancement of ultrasonically‐induced hemolysis by perfluorocarbon‐based compared to air‐based echo‐contrast agents. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 1998; 24: 285–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang J. H., Brayman A. A., Reidy M. A., Matula T. J., et al. Vascular effects induced by combined 1‐MHz ultrasound and microbubble contrast agent treatments in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005; 31: 553–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobayashi N., Yasu T., Yamada S., Kudo N., et al. Influence of contrast ultrasonography with perflutren lipid microspheres on microvessel injury. Circ J 2003; 67: 630–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kobayashi N., Yasu T., Yamada S., Kudo N., et al. Endothelial cell injury in venule and capillary induced by contrast ultrasonography. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002; 28: 949–56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skyba D. M., Price R. J., Linka A. Z., Skalak T. C., et al. Direct in vivo visualization of intravascular destruction of microbubbles by ultrasound and its local effects on tissue. Circulation 1998; 98: 290–3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller D. L., Li P., Dou C., Gordon D., et al. Influence of contrast agent dose and ultrasound exposure on cardiomyocyte injury induced by myocardial contrast echocardiography in rats. Radiology 2005; 237: 137–43
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ay T., Havaux X., Van Camp G., Campanelli B., et al. Destruction of contrast microbubbles by ultrasound – Effects on myocardial function, coronary perfusion pressure, and microvascular integrity. Circulation 2001; 104: 461–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li P., Cao L. Q., Dou C. Y., Armstrong W. F., et al. Impact of myocardial contrast echocardiography on vascular permeability: An in vivo dose response study of delivery mode, pressure amplitude and contrast dose. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 2003; 29: 1341–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li P., Armstrong W. F., Miller D. L. Impact of myocardial contrast echocardiography on vascular permeability: Comparison of three different contrast agents. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2004; 43: 316A
   Google Scholar
• van der Wouw P. A., Brauns A. C., Bailey S. E., Powers J. E., et al. Premature ventricular contractions during triggered imaging with ultrasound contrast. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 2000; 13: 288–94
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkmans P. A., Juffermans L. J., Musters R. J., van Wamel A., et al. Microbubbles and ultrasound: from diagnosis to therapy. Eur J Echocardiogr, 5: 245–56
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bekeredjian R., Grayburn P. A., Shohet R. V. Use of ultrasound contrast agents for gene or drug delivery in cardiovascular medicine. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2005; 45: 329–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Unger E. C., Hersh E., Vannan M., Matsunaga T. O., et al. Local drug and gene delivery through microbubbles. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 2001; 44: 45–54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feril L. B., Kondo T., Zhao Q. L., Ogawa R., Tachibana K., et al. Enhancement of ultrasound‐induced apoptosis and cell lysis by echo‐contrast agents. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 2003; 29: 331–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chavrier F., Chapelon J. Y., Gelet A., Cathignol D. Modeling of high‐intensity focused ultrasound‐induced lesions in the presence of cavitation bubbles. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2000; 108: 432–40
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindner J. R. Molecular imaging with contrast ultrasound and targeted microbubbles. J Nucl Cardiol 2004; 11: 215–21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellegala D. B., Leong‐Poi H., Carpenter J. E., Klibanov A. L., et al. Imaging tumor angiogenesis with contrast ultrasound and microbubbles targeted to alpha(v)beta3. Circulation 2003; 108: 336–41
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindner J. R. Detection of inflamed plaques with contrast ultrasound. Am J Cardiol 2002; 90: 32L–35L
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumann P. A., Christiansen J. P., Quigley R. M., McCreery T. P., et al. Targeted‐microbubble binding selectively to GPIIb IIIa receptors of platelet thrombi. Investigative Radiology 2002; 37: 587–93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leen E., Moug S. J., Horgan P. Potential impact and utilization of ultrasound contrast media. Eur Radiol 2004; 14((Suppl 8))16–24
   Google Scholar
• Feinstein S. B. The powerful microbubble: from bench to bedside, from intravascular indicator to therapeutic delivery system, and beyond. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2004; 287: H450–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elhendy A., Porter T. R. Assessment of myocardial perfusion with real‐time myocardial contrast echocardiography: Methodology and clinical applications. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology 2005; 12: 582–90
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Quaia E., Calliada F., Bertolotto M., Rossi S., et al. Characterization of focal liver lesions with contrast specific US modes and a sulfur hexafluoride‐filled microbubble contrast agent: Diagnostic performance and confidence. Radiology 2004; 232: 420–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solbiati L., Tonolini M., Cova L., Goldberg S. N. The role of contrast‐enhanced ultrasound in the detection of focal liver leasions. Eur Radiol 2001; 11((Suppl 3))E15–E26
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Solbiati L., Tonolini M., Cova L. Monitoring RF ablation. Eur Radiol 2004; 14((Suppl 8))34–42
   Google Scholar
• Solbiati L., Ierace T., Tonolini M., Cova L. Guidance and monitoring of radiofrequency liver tumor ablation with contrast‐enhanced ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2004; 51((Suppl))S19–S23
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coakley F. V., Qayyum A., Kurhanewicz J. Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer. Journal of Urology 2003; 170: S69–S75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jemal A., Murray T., Ward E., Samuels A., et al. Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 2005; 55: 10–30
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogers H. A., Sedelaar J. P., Beerlage H. P., de la Rosette J. J., et al. Contrast‐enhanced three‐dimensional power Doppler angiography of the human prostate: correlation with biopsy outcome. Urology 1999; 54: 97–104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sedelaar J. P., van Leenders G. J., Goossen T. E., Hulsbergen‐van der Kaa C. A., et al. Value of contrast ultrasonography in the detection of significant prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 2002; 53: 246–53
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sedelaar J. P., van Leenders G. J., Hulsbergen‐van de Kaa C. A., van der Poel H. G., et al. Microvessel density: correlation between contrast ultrasonography and histology of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2001; 40: 285–93
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Halpern E. J., Ramey J. R., Strup S. E., Frauscher F., et al. Detection of prostate carcinoma with contrast‐enhanced sonography using intermittent harmonic imaging. Cancer, in press: published online October , 20: 2005
   Google Scholar
• Frauscher F., Klauser A., Volgger H., Halpern E. J., Pallwein L., et al. Comparison of contrast enhanced color Doppler targeted biopsy with conventional systematic biopsy: impact on prostate cancer detection. J Urol 2002; 167: 1648–52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpern E. J., Frauscher F., Rosenberg M., Gomella L. G. Directed biopsy during contrast‐enhanced sonography of the prostate. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178: 915–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Halpern E. J., McCue P. A., Aksnes A. K., Hagen E. K., et al. Contrast‐enhanced US of the prostate with Sonazoid: comparison with whole‐mount prostatectomy specimens in 12 patients. Radiology 2002; 222: 361–6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goossen T. E., de la Rosette J. J., Hulsbergen‐van de Kaa C. A., van Leenders G. J., et al. The value of dynamic contrast enhanced power Doppler ultrasound imaging in the localization of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2003; 43: 124–31
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eckersley R. J., Sedelaar J. P., Blomley M. J., Wijkstra H., et al. Quantitative microbubble enhanced transrectal ultrasound as a tool for monitoring hormonal treatment of prostate carcinoma. Prostate 2002; 51: 256–67
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sedelaar J. P., Aarnink R. G., van Leenders G. J., Beerlage H. P., et al. The application of three‐dimensional contrast‐enhanced ultrasound to measure volume of affected tissue after HIFU treatment for localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2000; 37: 559–68
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Strohmeyer D., Frauscher F., Klauser A., Recheis W., et al. Contrast‐enhanced transrectal color doppler ultrasonography (TRCDUS) for assessment of angiogenesis in prostate cancer. Anticancer Res 2001; 21: 2907–13
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nilsson A. Contrast‐enhanced ultrasound of the kidneys. Eur Radiol 2004; 14((Suppl 8))104–9
   Google Scholar
• Zhu Q., Shimizu T., Endo H., Kodama Y., et al. Assessment of renal cell carcinoma after cryoablation using contrast‐enhanced gray‐scale ultrasound: a case series. Clin Imaging 2005; 29: 102–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kettenbach J., Helbich T. H., Huber A., Zuna, et al. Computer‐assisted quantitative assessment of power Doppler US: effects of microbubble contrast agent in the differentiation of breast tumors. European Journal of Radiology 2005; 53: 238–44
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yang W. T., Metreweli C., Lam P. K. W., Chang J. Benign and malignant breast masses and axillary nodes: Evaluation with echo‐enhanced color power Doppler US. Radiology 2001; 220: 795–802
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar