Review of Ultrasound Contrast Agents in Current Clinical Practice With Special Focus On DEFINITY^® in Cardiac Imaging

References

• Lindner JR , LewisC. “Contrast echocardiography: clinical utility for the evaluation of left ventricular systolic function”. Am. Heart Hosp. J., 2(1), 16–20 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chong WK , PapadopoulouV, DaytonPA. Imaging with ultrasound contrast agents: current status and future. Abdom. Radiol. (NY), 43(4), 762–772 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feinstein SB . The powerful microbubble: from bench to bedside, from intravascular indicator to therapeutic delivery system and beyond. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol., 287, H450–H457 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen MG , TueroE, BluguermannJet al. Transcutaneous ultrasound-facilitated coronary thrombolysis during acute myocardial infarction. Am. J. Cardiol., 92(4), 454–457 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lentacker I , DeCock I, DeckersR, DeSmedt SC, MoonenCT. Understanding ultrasound induced sonoporation: definitions and underlying mechanisms. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev., 72, 49–64 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurt M , ShaikhKA, PetersonLet al. Impact of contrast echocardiography on evaluation of ventricular function and clinical management in a large prospective cohort. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 53(9), 802–810 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sennoga CA , KanbarE, AuboireLet al. Microbubble-mediated ultrasound drug-delivery and therapeutic monitoring. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv., 14(9), 1031–1043 (2017).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang ST , YehCK. Ultrasound microbubble contrast agents for diagnostic and therapeutic applications: current status and future design. Chang. Gung. Med. J., 35(2), 125–139 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kogan P , GessnerRC, DaytonPA. Microbubbles in imaging: applications beyond ultrasound. Bubble Sci. Eng. Technol., 2(1), 3–8 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shpak O , VerweijM, de JongN, VersluisM. Droplets, bubbles and ultrasound interactions. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol., 880, 157–174 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myrset AH , NicolaysenH, ToftK, ChristiansenC, SkotlandT. Biotechnology and applied biochemistry. 24, 145–153 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Grinstaff MW , SuslickKS. Air-filled proteinaceous microbubbles: synthesis of an echo-contrast agent. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 88(17), 7708–7710 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher NG , ChristiansenJP, KlibanovA, TaylorRP, KaulS, LindnerJR. Influence of microbubble surface charge on capillary transit and myocardial contrast enhancement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 40, 811–819 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie A , BelcikT, QiYet al. Ultrasound-mediated vascular gene transfection by cavitation of endothelial-targeted cationic microbubbles. JACC Cardiovasc. Imag., 5, 1253–1262 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rix A , LederleW, TheekBet al. Advanced ultrasound technologies for diagnosis and therapy. J. Nucl. Med., 59, 740–746 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sirsi S , BordenM. Microbubble compositions, properties and biomedical applications. Bubble Sci. Eng. Technol., 1(1–2), 3–17 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tsutsui JM , XieF, PorterRT. The use of microbubbles to target drug delivery. Cardiovasc. Ultrasound, 2, 23 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raisinghani A , DeMaria AN. Physical principles of microbubble ultrasound contrast agents. Am. J. Cardiol., 90(10A), 3J–7J (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gramiak R , ShahPM. Echocardiography of the aortic root. Invest. Radiol., 3(5), 356–366 (1968).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mayer S , GrayburnPA. Myocardial contrast agents: recent advances and future directions. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis., 44(1), 33–44 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng KT . Stabilized Sulfur Hexafluoride Microbubbles. Molecular Imaging and Contrast Agent Database (MICAD), MD, USA, (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Bekeredjian R , ChenS, FrenkelPA, GrayburnPA, ShohetRV. Ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction can repeatedly direct highly specific plasmid expression to the heart. Circulation, 108, 1022–1026 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin KH , DaytonPA. Current status and prospects for microbubbles in ultrasound theranostics. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol., 5(4), 329–345 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benko LB . UnitedHealth snags definity. Mod. Healthc., 34(49), 8–9 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Paefgen V , DoleschelD, KiesslingF. Evolution of contrast agents for ultrasound imaging and ultrasound-mediated drug delivery. Front. Pharmacol., 6, 197 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng KT . Perflutren Lipid Microspheres. Molecular Imaging and Contrast Agent Database (MICAD), (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Ja’afar F , LeowC, GarbinV, SennogaC, TangM, SeddonJ. Surface charge measurement of sonovue, definity and optison: a comparison of laser doppler electrophoresis and micro-electrophoresis. Ultrasmedbio, 41(11), 2990–3000 (2015).
   Google Scholar
• Main ML , GoldmanJH, GrayburnPA. Ultrasound contrast agents: balancing safety versus efficacy. Expert Opin. Drug Saf., 8(1), 49–56 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter TR , MulvaghSL, AbdelmoneimSSet al. Clinical applications of ultrasonic enhancing agents in echocardiography: 2018 American Society of Echocardiography Guidelines Update. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr., 31(3), 241–274 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulvagh SL , RakowskiH, VannanMAet al. American society of echocardiography consensus statement on the clinical applications of ultrasonic contrast agents in echocardiography. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr., 21(11), 1179–1281 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu EH , SkybaDM, SloggettCEet al. Determination of left ventricular ejection fraction using intravenous contrast and a semiautomated border detection algorithm. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr., 16, 22–28 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson HL , BasmadjianAJ, RainbirdAJet al. Contrast echocardiography improves the accuracy and reproducibility of left ventricular remodeling measurements: a prospective, randomly assigned, blinded study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 38, 867–875 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malm S , FrigstadS, SagbergE, LarssonH, SkjaerpeT. Accurate and reproducible measurement of left ventricular volume and ejection fraction by contrast echocardiography: a comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 44(5), 1030–1035 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurt M , ShaikhKA, PetersonLet al. Impact of contrast echocardiography on evaluation of ventricular function and clinical management in a large prospective cohort. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 53(9), 802–810 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yong Y , WuD, FernandesVet al. Diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of contrast echocardiography on evaluation of cardiac function in technically very difficult patients in the intensive care unit. Am. J. Cardiol., 89(6), 711–718 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavalcante JL , CollierP, PlanaJC, AglerD, ThomasJD, MarwickTH. Two-dimensional longitudinal strain assessment in the presence of myocardial contrast agents is only feasible with speckle-tracking after microbubble destruction. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr., 25(12), 1309–1318 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagy AI , SahlenA, ManourasAet al. Combination of contrast-enhanced wall motion analysis and myocardial deformation imaging during dobutamine stress echocardiography. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imag., 16(1), 88–95 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thanigaraj S , SchechtmanKB, PérezJE. Improved echocardiographic delineation of left ventricular thrombus with the use of intravenous second-generation contrast image enhancement. J. American Society Echocardiogr., 12(12), 1022–1026 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chow CM , LimKD, WuLet al. Images in cardiovascular medicine. Isolated left ventricular noncompaction enhanced by echocontrast agent. Circulation, 116(4), e90–e91 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lepper W , ShivalkarB, RinkevichD, BelcikT, WeiK. Assessment of the vascularity of a left ventricular mass using myocardial contrast echocardiography. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr., 15, 1419–1422 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdelmoneim SS , BernierM, DhobleAet al. Assessment of the vascularity of a left atrial mass using myocardial perfusion contrast echocardiography. Echocardiography, 25, 517–520 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick JN , WongT, BednarzJEet al. Differential diagnosis of cardiac masses using contrast echocardiographic perfusion imaging. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 43(8), 1412–1419 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann R , von BardelebenS, ten CateFet al. Assessment of systolic left ventricular function: a multi-centre comparison of cineventriculography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, unenhanced and contrast-enhanced echocardiography. Eur. Heart J., 26(6), 607–616 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan M , RiadK, El-ShafeiA. Effect of intravenous contrast for left ventricular opacification and border definition on sensitivity and specificity of dobutamine stress echocardiography compared with coronary angiography in technically difficult patients. Am. Heart J., 142, 908–915 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plana JC , MikatiIA, DokainishHet al. A Randomized cross-over study for evaluation of the effect of image optimization with conrast onthe diagnostic accuracy of dobutamine echocardiography in coronary artery disease: The OPTIMIZE Trial. JACC Cardiovasc. Imag., 1, 145–152 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rainbird AJ , MulvaghSL, OhJKet al. Contrast dobutamine stress echocardiography: clinical practice assessment in 300 consecutive patients. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr., 14, 378–385 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cwajg J , XieF, O’LearyEet al. Detection of angiographically significant coronary artery disease with accelerated intermittent imaging after intravenous administration of ultrasound contrast material. Am. Heart J., 139(4), 675–683 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shimoni S et al. “Real-time assessment of myocardial perfusion and wall motion during bicycle and treadmill exercise echocardiography: comparison with single photon emission computed tomography”. JACC, 37, 741–774 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Dawson D , RinkevichD, BelcikTet al. Measurement of myocardial blood flow velocity reserve with myocardial contrast echocardiography in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: comparison with quantitative gated Technetium 99m sestamibi single photon emission computed tomography. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr., 16(11), 1171–1177 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rinkevich D , KaulS, WangXQet al. Regional left ventricular perfusion and function in patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain and no ST-segment elevation. Eur. Heart J., 26(16), 1606–1611 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Main ML , GoldmanJH, GrayburnPA. Thinking outside the box: the ultrasound contrast controversy. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 50(25), 2434–2437; 18154971 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muskula PR , MainML. Safety with echocardiographic contrast agents. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imag., 10(4), e005459 (2017).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu YN , KhanguraJ, XieAet al. Renal retention of lipid microbubbles: a potential mechanism for flank discomfort during ultrasound contrast administration. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr., 26(12), 1474–1481 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herzog CA . Incidence of adverse events associated with use of perflutren contrast agents for echocardiography. JAMA, 299, 2023–2025 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabriel RS , SmythYM, MenonVet al. Safety of ultrasound contrast agents in stress echocardiography. Am. J. Cardiol., 102, 1269–1272 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Main ML , RyanAC, DavisTEet al. Acute mortality in hospitalized patients undergoing echocardiography with and without an ultrasound contrast agent (multicenter registry results in 4,300,966 consecutive patients). Am. J. Cardiol., 102, 1742–1746 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kusnetzky LL , KhalidA, KhumriTMet al. Acute mortality in hospitalized patients undergoing echocardiography with and without an ultrasound contrast agent: results in 18,671 consecutive studies. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 51, 1704–1706 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaikh K , ChangSM, PetersonLet al. Safety of contrast administration for endocardial enhancement during stress echocardiography compared with noncontrast stress. Am. J. Cardiol., 102, 1444–1450 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei K , MulvaghSL, CarsonLet al. The safety of deFinity and OPTISON for ultrasound image enhancement: a retrospective analysis of 78,383 administered contrast doses. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr., 21, 1202–1206 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan MS , GalaSS, DodlaSet al. Safety and efficacy of commercially available ultrasound contrast agents for rest and stress echocardiography a multicenter experience. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 53, 32–38 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdelmoneim SS , BernierM, ScottCGet al. The safety of contrast agent use during stress echocardiography: a 4-year experience from a single-center cohort study of 26,774 patients. JACC Cardiovasc. Imag., 2, 1048–1056 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Exuzides A , MainML, ColbyC, GrayburnPA, FeinsteinSB, GoldmanJH. A retrospective comparison of mortality in critically ill hospitalized patients undergoing echocardiography with and without an ultrasound contrast agent. JACC Cardiovasc. Imag., 3(6), 578–585 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdelmoneim SS , BernierM, ScottCGet al. The safety of contrast agent use during stress echocardiography in patients with elevated right ventricular systolic pressure: a cohort study. Circ Cardiovasc. Imag., 3, 240–248 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg YH , GinelliP, SiegelR, OstfeldRJ, SchaeferM, SpevackDM. Administration of perflutren contrast agents during transthoracic echocardiographyis not associated with a significant increase in acute mortalityrisk. Cardiology, 122, 119–125 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss RJ , AhmadM, VillanuevaFet al. Contrast Echocardiography Registry for Safety Surveillance: a prospective multicenter study to evaluate the safety of the ultrasound contrast agent definity in clinical practice. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr., 25, 790–795 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wever-Pinzon O , SumaV, AhujaAet al. The safety of echocardiographic contrast in hospitalized patients with pulmonary hypertension: a multi-center study. Eur. Heart J. Cardiovasc. Imag., 13(10), 857–862 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Platts DG , LuisSA, RoperDet al. The safety profile of perflutren microsphere contrast echocardiography duringrest and stress imaging: results from an Australian multicentre cohort. Heart Lung Circ., 22, 996–1002 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asch FM , WeissmanNJ. Overview of the 2008 Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committee on safety considerations in the development of ultrasound contrast agents. Circulation, 119, 1956–1961 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei K , MainML, LangRMet al. The effect of Definity on systemic and pulmonary hemodynamics in patients. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr., 25, 584–588 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Main ML , HibberdMG, RyanA, LoweTJ, MillerP, BhatG. Acute mortality in critically ill patients undergoing echocardiography with or without an ultrasound contrast agent. JACC Cardiovasc. Imag., 7, 40–48 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei K , ShahS, JaberWA, DeMariaA. An observational study of the occurrence of serious adverse reactions among patients who receive OPTISONin routine medical practice. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr., 27, 1006–1010 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Main M , FuR, GundrumJet al. Impact of contrast echocardiography on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients. 30th annual scientific sessions. JASE, 32(6), B1–B137 (2019).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Khawaja OA , ShaikhKA, Al-MallahMH. Meta-analysis of adverse cardiovascular events associated with echocardiographic contrast agents. Am J Cardiol., 106(5), 742-747 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalra A , ShroffGR, ErlienD, GilbertsonDT, HerzogCA. Perflutrenbased echocardiographic contrast in patients with right-to-left intracardiac shunts. JACC Cardiovasc. Imag., 7, 206–207 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration . Initial prescribing information for definity on July 31, 2001 (2011). www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2001/21-064_Definity_prntlbl.pdf
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration . DEFINITY HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESCRIBING INFORMATION (2018). www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/021064s022lbl.pdf
   Google Scholar