Abstract
Background
Pediatric contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is primarily performed outside the United States where a track record for safety in intravenous and intravesical applications has been established. Contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography (ceVUS) has also been shown to have a much higher rate of vesicoureteral reflux detection compared to voiding cystourethrography. US contrast agents available in the United States differ from those abroad. Optison® (GE Healthcare, Princeton, NJ) is such an US contrast agent. While Optison® has similar characteristics to other second-generation agents, it has never been used for ceVUS. In vitro optimization of dose and imaging parameters as well as assessment of contrast visualization when delivered in conditions similar to ceVUS are necessary starting points prior to in vivo applications.
Objective
To optimize the intravesical use of Optison® in vitro for ceVUS before its use in pediatric studies.
Materials and methods
The experimental design simulated intravesical use. Using 9- and 12-MHz linear transducers, we scanned 20-mL syringes varying mechanical index, US contrast agent concentration (0.25%, 0.5%, 1.0%), solvent (saline, urine, radiographic contrast agent) and time out of refrigeration. We evaluated mechanical index settings and contrast duration, optimized the contrast dose, measured the effect of urine and radiographic contrast agent, and the impact of length of time of contrast outside of the refrigerator on US contrast appearance. We scanned 50-ml saline bags to assess the appearance and duration of US contrast with different delivery systems (injection vs. infusion).
Results
Consistent contrast visualization was achieved at a mechanical index of 0.06-0.17 and 0.11-0.48 for the L9 and L12 MHz transducers (P < 0.01), respectively. Thus, it was necessary to increase the mechanical index for better contrast visualization of the microbubbles with a higher transducer frequency. The lowest mechanical index for earliest visible microbubble destruction was 0.21 for the 9 MHz and 0.39 for the 12 MHz (P < 0.01) transducers. The 0.5% US contrast agent volume to bladder filling was the most optimal. At this concentration, the mean time to visualize homogenous contrast was 2 min and destruction of approximately half of the microbubbles in the field of view occurred in 7.8 min using the 9-MHz transducer. During contrast infusion, the contrast dose needed to be reduced to 0.12% for maintenance of optimal visualization of microbubbles. There was no deleterious effect on the visualization of contrast in the presence of urine or radiographic contrast agent. Infusion of the US contrast agent speeded visualization of homogeneous enhancement compared with injection. Time outside refrigeration did not affect contrast performance.
Conclusion
Transducer mechanical index settings need to be optimized. A very low dose of the US contrast agent Optison® will suffice for intravesical application, i.e. 0.12% to 0.50% of the bladder filling volume. The presence of urine or radiographic contrast agent did not compromise contrast visualization. The best mode of administration is the infusion method due to fast homogenous distribution at the lowest dose of 0.12%. Leaving the US contrast agent outside the refrigerator for an hour does not affect the microbubbles.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Darge K (2010) Voiding urosonography with US contrast agent for the diagnosis of vesicoureteric reflux in children: an update. Pediatr Radiol 40:956–962
Darge K (2008) Voiding urosonography with ultrasound contrast agents for the diagnosis of vesicoureteric reflux in children. I. Procedure. Pediatr Radiol 38:40–53
Darge K (2008) Voiding urosonography with US contrast agents for the diagnosis of vesicoureteric reflux in children. II. Comparison with radiological examinations. Pediatr Radiol 38:54–63
McCarville MB, Kaste SC, Hoffer FA et al (2012) Contrast-enhanced sonography of malignant pediatric abdominal and pelvic solid tumors: preliminary safety and feasibility data. Pediatr Radiol 42:824–833
Darge K, Papadopoulou F, Ntoulia A et al (2013) Safety of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in children for non-cardiac applications: a review by the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) and the International Contrast Ultrasound Society (ICUS). Pediatr Radiol 43:1063–1073
Podell S, Burrascano C, Gaal M et al (1999) Physical and biochemical stability of Optison, and injectable ultrasound contrast agent. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 30:213–223
Robrecht J, Darge K (2007) In-vitro comparison of a 1st and a 2nd generation US contrast agent for reflux diagnosis. RöFo 179:818–825
Darge K, Bruchelt W, Roessling G et al (2003) Interaction of normal saline solution with ultrasound contrast medium: significant implication for sonographic diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux. Eur Radiol 13:213–218
Goddi A, Novario R, Tanzi F et al (2004) In vitro analysis of ultrasound second generation contrast agent diluted in saline solution. Radiol Med 107:569–579
Bruce M, Averkiou M, Powers J (2007) Ultrasound contrast in general imaging research. Contrast in research white paper. Philips Medical Systems. Available at: www.healthcare.philips.com/pwc_hc/main/shared/Assets/Documents/Ultrasound/Products?Campaigns/Pushing%20the%20Boundaries/Contrast_In_Research_White_Paper.pdf. Accessed 26 Mar 2015
Moir S, Marwick TH (2004) Combination of contrast with stress echocardiography: a practical guide to methods and interpretation. Cardiovasc Ultrasound 2:15
Papadopoulou F, Anthopoulou A, Siomou E et al (2009) Harmonic voiding urosonography with a second generation contrast agent for the diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux. Pediatr Radiol 39:239–244
Duran C, del Riego J, Riera L et al (2012) Voiding urosonography including urethrosonography: high-quality examinations with an optimized procedure using a second-generation US contrast agent. Pediatr Radiol 42:660–667
Optison package insert. Distributed by GE Healthcare, Princeton, NJ. Manufactured by Mallinckrodt Inc., St Louis, MO. May 2008. Available at: www3.gehealthcare.com/en/products/categories/contrast_media/optison. Accessed 30 Sept 2013
Duran C, Valera A, Alguersuari A et al (2009) Voiding urosonography: the study of the urethra is no longer a limitation of the technique. Pediatr Radiol 39:124–131
Papadopoulou F, Evangelou E, Riccabona M et al. (2012) Contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography for diagnosis of vesicoureteric reflux in comparison to conventional methods: a meta-analysis. ECR Book of Abstracts, Insights Imaging 3:SS 1712, B-0860
Kis E, Nyitrai A, Varkonyi I et al (2010) Voiding urosonography with second-generation contrast agent versus voiding cystourethrography. Pediatr Nephrol 25:2289–2293
Riccabona M (2012) Application of a second-generation US contrast agent in infants and children—a European questionnaire-based survey. Pediatr Radiol 42:1471–1480
Weskott HP (ed) (2011) Contrast enhanced ultrasound. Unimed, Bremen
Annex 1 Summary of Product Information Optison. GE Healthcare. 18 Nov 2010. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000166/WC500059461.pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2013
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Beth McCarville, MD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, for kindly providing a few vials of Optison® for the pilot in vitro trial prior to start of this study at a period of time when there was a shortage of the US contrast agent nationwide. We would also like to thank Laura Poznick, RDMS AAS, Ultrasound Team Lead, Division of Body Imaging, Department of Radiology, for her support of this project. We would also like to express our deepest appreciation to the Department of Radiology of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia for providing a seed grant that helped to fund all the materials and US contrast agent necessary for the experiments.
Conflicts of interest
None
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Back, S.J., Edgar, J.C., Canning, D.A. et al. Contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography: in vitro evaluation of a second-generation ultrasound contrast agent for in vivo optimization. Pediatr Radiol 45, 1496–1505 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-015-3355-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-015-3355-3