European Radiology

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 941–945 | Cite as

Safety of ultrasound contrast agents

  • Jarl Å. Jakobsen
  • Raymond Oyen
  • Henrik S. Thomsen
  • Sameh K. Morcos
  • Members of Contrast Media Safety Committee of European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)
Contrast Media

Abstract

The use of ultrasound contrast agents has increased over recent years. The Contrast Media Safety Committee (CMSC) of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) decided to review the safety of ultrasound contrast agents in humans and to draw up guidelines. A comprehensive literature search and review was carried out. The resulting report was discussed by the CMSC of ESUR and at the 11th European Symposium on Urogenital Radiology in Santiago de Compostela, Spain, in 2004. Ultrasound contrast agents approved for clinical use are well tolerated, and serious adverse reactions are rarely observed. Adverse events are usually minor (e.g. headache, nausea, altered taste, sensation of heat) and self-resolving. These symptoms may not be related to the ultrasound contrast materials as they have also been observed in placebo–control groups. Intolerance to some components may occur. Generalized allergy-like reactions occur rarely. Ultrasound contrast agents are generally safe. The ultrasound scanning time and the acoustic output should be kept to the lowest level consistent with obtaining diagnostic information. Adverse reactions should be treated symptomatically.

Keywords

Contrast media Ultrasound contrast agents Adverse events Risk factors Guidelines Treatment 

References

  1. 1.
    Jakobsen J (1996) Echo-enhancing agents in the renal tract. Clin Radiol 51:S40–S43Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burns PN (1996) Harmonic imaging with ultrasound contrast agents. Clin Radiol 51:S50–S55Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burns PN, Wilson SR, Simpson DH (2000) Pulse inversion imaging of liver blood flow: improved method for characterizing focal masses with microbubble contrast. Invest Radiol 35:58–71Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Correas J-M, Bridal L, Lesavre A, Méjean A, Claudon M, Hélénon O (2001) Ultrasound contrast agents: properties, principles of action, tolerance, and artifacts. Eur Radiol 11:1316–1328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miller DL, Gies RA (1998) Enhancement of ultrasonically-induced hemolysis by perfluorocarbon-based compared to air-based echo-contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol 24:285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Poliachik SL, Chandler WL, Mourad PD, et al (1999) Effect of high-intensity focused ultrasound on whole blood with and without microbubble contrast agent. Ultrasound Med Biol 25:991–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carstensen EL, Kelly P, Church CC, et al (1993) Lysis of erythrocytes by exposure to CW ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 19:147–165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Everbach EC, Makin IR, Francis CW, Meltzer RS (1998) Effect of acoustic cavitation on platelets in the presence of an echo-contrast agent. Ultrasound Med Biol 24:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Walday P, Tolleshaug H, Gjoen T, et al (1994) Biodistributions of air-filled albumin microspheres in rats and pigs. Biochem J 299:437–443Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ostensen J, Hede R, Myreng Y, Ege T, Holtz E (1992) Intravenous injection of Albunex microspheres causes thromboxane mediated pulmonary hypertension in pigs, but not in monkeys or rabbits. Acta Physiol Scand 144:307–315Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yamaya Y, Niizeki K, Kim J, Entin PL, Wagner H, Wagner PD (2002) Effects of Optison on pulmonary gas exchange and hemodynamics. Ultrasound Med Biol 28:1005–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raeman CH, Dalecki D, Child SZ, Meltzer RS, Carstensen EL (1997) Albunex does not increase the sensitivity of the lung to pulsed ultrasound. Echocardiography 14:553–558Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Main ML, Escobar JF, Hall SA, Grayburn PA (1997) Safety and efficacy of QW7437, a new fluorocarbon-based echocardiographic contrast agent. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 10:798–804Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meza M, Greener Y, Hunt R, et al (1996) Myocardial contrast echocardiography: reliable, safe, and efficacious myocardial perfusion assessment after intravenous injections of a new echocardiographic contrast agent. Am Heart J 132:871–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen S, Kroll MH, Shohet RV, Frenkel P, Mayer SA, Grayburn PA (2002) Bioeffects of myocardial contrast microbubble destruction by echocardiography. Echocardiography 19:495–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zachary JF, Hartleben SA, Frizzell LA, O’Brien WD Jr (2002) Arrhythmias in rat hearts exposed to pulsed ultrasound after intravenous injection of a contrast agent. J Ultrasound Med 21:1347–1356Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mychaskiw G II, Badr AE, Tibbs R, Clower BR, Zhang JH (2000) Optison (FS069) disrupts the blood–brain barrier in rats. Anesth Analg 91:798–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haggag KJ, Russell D, Walday P, Skiphamn A, Torvik A (1998) Air-filled ultrasound contrast agents do not damage the cerebral microvasculature or brain tissue in rats. Invest Radiol 33:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kobayashi N, Yasu T, Yamada S, et al (2002) Endothelial cell injury in venule and capillary induced by contrast ultrasonography. Ultrasound Med Biol 28:949–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kobayashi N, Yasu T, Yamada S, et al (2003) Influence of contrast ultrasonography with perflutren lipid microspheres on microvessel injury. Circ J 67:630–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rasmussen H, Dirven HA, Grant D, Johnsen H, Midtvedt T (2003) Etiology of cecal and hepatic lesions in mice after administration of gas-carrier contrast agents used in ultrasound imaging. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 188:176–184Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nanda NC, Carstensen EL (1997) Echo-enhancing agents: safety. In: Nanda NC, Schlief R, Goldberg BB (eds) Advances in echo imaging using contrast enhancement. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp 115–131Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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 35:80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Myreng Y, Molstad P, Ytre-Arne K, et al (1999) Safety of the transpulmonary ultrasound contrast agent NC100100: a clinical and hemodynamic evaluation in patients with suspected or proven coronary artery disease. Heart 82:333–335Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Robbin ML, Eisenfeld AJ, EchoGen Contrast Ultrasound Study Group (1998) Perflenapent emulsion: a US contrast agent for diagnostic radiology-multicenter, double-blind comparison with a placebo. Radiology 207:717–722PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Borges AC, Walde T, Reibis RK, et al (2002) Does contrast echocardiography with Optison induce myocardial necrosis in humans? J Am Soc Echocardiogr 15:1080–1086Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bokor D, Chambers JB, Rees PJ, Mant TGK, Luzzani F, Spinazzi A (2001) Clinical safety of SonoVue, a new contrast agent for ultrasound imaging, in healthy volunteers and in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Invest Radiol 36:104–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Claudon M, Pouin PF, Baxter G, Ohban T, Maniez Devos D (2000) Renal arteries in patients at risk of renal arterial stenosis: multicenter evaluation of the echo-enhancer SH U 508A at color and spectral Doppler US. Levovist Renal Artery Stenosis Study Group. Radiology 214:739–746PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rott HD (1999) Safety of ultrasonic contrast agents. European Committee for Medical Ultrasound Safety. Eur J Ultrasound 9:195-197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    ter Haar GR (2002) Ultrasonic contrast agents: safety considerations reviewed. Eur J Radiol 41:217–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goldberg BB (1997) Ultrasound contrast agents. Martin Dunitz, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cohen JL, Cheirif J, Segar DS, Gillam LD, Gottdiener JS, Hausnerova E (1998) Improved left ventricular endocardial border delineation and opacification with Optison (FS069), a new echocardiographic contrast agent. Results of a phase III multicenter trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 32:746–752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kaps M, Seidel G, Bokor D, Modrau B, Algermissen C (1999) Safety and ultrasound enhancing potentials of a new sulfur hexafluoride-containing agent in the cerebral circulation. J Neuroimaging 9:150–154Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fritsch T, Schlief R (1995) Levovist. Drugs Future 20:1224–1227Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Van Der Wouw PA, Brauns AC, Bailey SE, Powers JE, Wilde AA (2000) Premature ventricular contractions during triggered imaging with ultrasound contrast. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 13:288–294Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brayman AA, Miller MW (1997) Acoustic cavitation nuclei survive the apparent ultrasonic destruction of Albunex microspheres. Ultrasound Med Biol 23:793–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dalecki D, Raeman CH, Child SZ, Penney DP, Carstensen EL (1997) Remnants of Albunex nucleate acoustic cavitation. Ultrasound Med Biol 23:1405–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Delius M (1994) Medical applications and bioeffects of extracorporeal shock waves. Shock Waves 4:55–72Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    ECMUS Safety Committee (1999) Tutorial paper: Safety of ultrasonic contrast agents. www.efsumb.org/tutpap11.htm Accessed 14.12.2004Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    European Committee of Medical Ultrasound Safety (ECMUS) (2003) Clinical safety statement for diagnostic ultrasound. EFSUMB Newsletter 17:15 http://www.efsumb.org/safstat2003.htm Acessed 14.12.2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jarl Å. Jakobsen
    • 1
  • Raymond Oyen
    • 2
  • Henrik S. Thomsen
    • 3
  • Sameh K. Morcos
    • 4
  • Members of Contrast Media Safety Committee of European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyRikshospitalet University HospitalOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLouvainBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic Radiology 54E2Copenhagen University Hospital at HerlevHerlevDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Northern General HospitalSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS TrustSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations