Skip to main content
Log in

Detection of focal renal perfusion defects in rabbits after sulphur hexafluoride-filled microbubble injection at low transmission power ultrasound insonation

  • Experimental
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (US) at low transmission power insonation for diagnosis of focal renal perfusion defects (RPDs) in rabbits. In seven adult New Zealand White rabbits focal RPDs were induced by polyvinyl alcohol embolizing particles (150–250 μm in diameter) injected into the abdominal aorta. Three other rabbits that were not subjected to embolization were considered as controls. Both kidneys were insonated at baseline and after injection of sulphur hexafluoride-filled microbubbles at low transmission power (mechanical index 0.09–0.12). One sonologist assessed on-site RPD dimensions and conspicuity (visual score 0–4). Digital cine-clips were also reviewed off-site by two other independent readers, blinded, who assigned a confidence level (grades 1–5) for the RPD diagnosis. At on-site analysis RPDs appeared as focal areas of absent or diminished enhancement with a median visual conspicuity score=4. At off-site analysis RPDs >6 mm in diameter were identified at contrast-enhanced US, and the confidence in RPD diagnosis improved significantly (P<0.05) after microbubble injection (area under receiver operating characteristic curve 0.615 vs 0.972 by reader 1; 0.720 vs 0.953 by reader 2). Contrast-enhanced US at low transmission power insonation effectively identified RPDs with diameters >6 mm in rabbits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Racusen LC, Solez K (1994) Renal infarction, cortical necrosis, and atheroembolic disease. In: Tisher CC, BM Brenner (eds) Renal pathology with clinical and functional correlations, 2nd edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 810–831

    Google Scholar 

  2. Teplick JG, Yarrow MW (1955) Arterial infarction of the kidney. Ann Intern Med 42:1041–1051

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kawashima A, Sandler CM, Ernst RD et al (2000) CT evaluation of renovascular disease. Radiographics 20:1321–1340

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wong WS, Moss AA, Federle MP (1984) Renal infarction: CT diagnosis and correlation between CT findings and etiologies. Radiology 150:201–205

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Quaia E, Bertolotto M (2002) Renal parenchymal diseases: is characterization feasible with ultrasound? Eur Radiol 12:2006–2020

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Coley BD, Mattrey RF, Roberts A, Keane S (1991) Potential role of PFOB enhanced sonography of the kidney. II. Detection of partial infarction. Kidney Int 39:740–745

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Taylor GA, Ecklund K, Dunning PS (1996) Renal cortical perfusion in rabbits: visualization with color amplitude imaging and an experimental microbubble-based US contrast agent. Radiology 201:125–129

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Taylor GA, Barnewolt CE, Adler BH, Dunning PS (1998) Renal cortical ischemia in rabbits revealed by contrast-enhanced power Doppler sonography. Am J Roentgen 170:417–422

    Google Scholar 

  9. Whittingham T (2005) Contrast-specific imaging techniques: technical perspective. In: Quaia E (ed) Contrast media in ultrasonography: basic principles and clinical applications. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 43–70

    Google Scholar 

  10. Munzing D, Mattrey RF, Reznik VM et al (1990) The potential role of PFOB enhanced sonography of the kidney: part I—detection of renal function and acute tubular necrosis. Kidney Int 39:733–739

    Google Scholar 

  11. Taylor GA, Barnewolt CE, Claudon M, Dunning P (1999) Depiction of renal perfusion defects with contrast-enhanced harmonic sonography in a porcine model. Am J Roentgen 173:757–760

    Google Scholar 

  12. Girard MS, Mattrey RF, Baker KG et al (2000) Comparison of standard and second harmonic B-mode sonography in the detection of renal infarction with ultrasound contrast in a rabbit model. J Ultrasound Med 19:185–192

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mattrey RF, Steinbach G, Lee Y et al (1998) High-resolution harmonic gray-scale imaging of normal and abnormal vessels and tissues in animals. Acad Radiol 5 [Suppl]:S63–S65

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Quaia E (2005) Classification and safety of microbubble-based contrast agents. In: Quaia E (ed) Contrast media in ultrasonography: basic principles and clinical applications. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 43–70

    Google Scholar 

  15. Beck JR, Shultz EK (1986) The use of relative operating characteristic (ROC) curves in test performance evaluation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 110:13–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148:839–843

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jakobsen JA, Oyen R, Thomsen HS, Morcos SK, Members of the Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (2005) Safety of ultrasound contrast agents. Eur Radiol 15:941–945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Claudon M, Barnewolt C, Taylor GA et al (1999) Renal blood flow in pigs: changes depicted with contrast-enhanced harmonic US imaging during acute urinary obstruction. Radiology 212:725–731

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim B, Lim HK, Choi MH et al (2001) Detection of parenchymal abnormalities in acute pyelonephritis by pulse inversion harmonic imaging with or without microbubble ultrasonographic contrast agent. J Ultrasound Med 20:5–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schmiedl UP, Carter S, Martin RW et al (1999) Sonographic detection of acute parenchymal injury in an experimental porcine model of renal hemorrhage: gray-scale imaging using sonographic contrast agent. Am J Roentgenol 173:1289–1294

    Google Scholar 

  21. Correas JM, Helenon O, Moreau JF (1999) Contrast enhanced ultrasonography of native and transplant kidney diseases. Eur Radiol 9 [Suppl 3]:394–400

    Google Scholar 

  22. Correas JM, Claudon M, Tranquart F, Hélenon O (2003) Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography: renal applications. J Radiol 84:2041–2054

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schneider M, Arditi M, Barrau MB et al (1995) BR1: a new ultrasonographic contrast agent based on sulphur hexafluoride-filled microbubbles. Invest Radiol 30:451–457

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Morel DR, Schwieger I, Hohn L et al (2000) Human pharmacokinetics and safety evaluation of SonoVue, a new contrast agent for ultrasound imaging. Invest Radiol 35:80–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nilsson A (2004) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the kidneys. Eur Radiol 14 [Suppl 8]:P104–P108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Richard B (1999) Test object for measurement of section thickness at US. Radiology 211:279–282

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Skolnick ML (1991) Estimation of ultrasound beam width in the elevation (section-thickness) plane. Radiology 180:286–288

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Philips Research grant from the ECR Research and Education Fund 2004.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emilio Quaia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Quaia, E., Siracusano, S., Palumbo, A. et al. Detection of focal renal perfusion defects in rabbits after sulphur hexafluoride-filled microbubble injection at low transmission power ultrasound insonation. Eur Radiol 16, 166–172 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2866-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2866-y

Keywords

Navigation