Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Safety of ultrasound contrast agents

  • Contrast Media
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jakobsen J (1996) Echo-enhancing agents in the renal tract. Clin Radiol 51:S40–S43

    Google Scholar 

  2. Burns PN (1996) Harmonic imaging with ultrasound contrast agents. Clin Radiol 51:S50–S55

    Google Scholar 

  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 35:58–71

    Google Scholar 

  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 11:1316–1328

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Miller DL, Gies RA (1998) Enhancement of ultrasonically-induced hemolysis by perfluorocarbon-based compared to air-based echo-contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol 24:285–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 25:991–998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carstensen EL, Kelly P, Church CC, et al (1993) Lysis of erythrocytes by exposure to CW ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 19:147–165

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 24:129–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Walday P, Tolleshaug H, Gjoen T, et al (1994) Biodistributions of air-filled albumin microspheres in rats and pigs. Biochem J 299:437–443

    Google Scholar 

  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 144:307–315

    Google Scholar 

  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 28:1005–1013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 14:553–558

    Google Scholar 

  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 10:798–804

    Google Scholar 

  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 132:871–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chen S, Kroll MH, Shohet RV, Frenkel P, Mayer SA, Grayburn PA (2002) Bioeffects of myocardial contrast microbubble destruction by echocardiography. Echocardiography 19:495–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 21:1347–1356

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mychaskiw G II, Badr AE, Tibbs R, Clower BR, Zhang JH (2000) Optison (FS069) disrupts the blood–brain barrier in rats. Anesth Analg 91:798–803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 33:129–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kobayashi N, Yasu T, Yamada S, et al (2002) Endothelial cell injury in venule and capillary induced by contrast ultrasonography. Ultrasound Med Biol 28:949–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kobayashi N, Yasu T, Yamada S, et al (2003) Influence of contrast ultrasonography with perflutren lipid microspheres on microvessel injury. Circ J 67:630–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 188:176–184

    Google Scholar 

  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 115–131

    Google Scholar 

  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 35:80–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 82:333–335

    Google Scholar 

  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 207:717–722

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Borges AC, Walde T, Reibis RK, et al (2002) Does contrast echocardiography with Optison induce myocardial necrosis in humans? J Am Soc Echocardiogr 15:1080–1086

    Google Scholar 

  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 36:104–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 214:739–746

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rott HD (1999) Safety of ultrasonic contrast agents. European Committee for Medical Ultrasound Safety. Eur J Ultrasound 9:195-197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. ter Haar GR (2002) Ultrasonic contrast agents: safety considerations reviewed. Eur J Radiol 41:217–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Goldberg BB (1997) Ultrasound contrast agents. Martin Dunitz, London

    Google Scholar 

  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 32:746–752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 9:150–154

    Google Scholar 

  34. Fritsch T, Schlief R (1995) Levovist. Drugs Future 20:1224–1227

    Google Scholar 

  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 13:288–294

    Google Scholar 

  36. Brayman AA, Miller MW (1997) Acoustic cavitation nuclei survive the apparent ultrasonic destruction of Albunex microspheres. Ultrasound Med Biol 23:793–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dalecki D, Raeman CH, Child SZ, Penney DP, Carstensen EL (1997) Remnants of Albunex nucleate acoustic cavitation. Ultrasound Med Biol 23:1405–1412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Delius M (1994) Medical applications and bioeffects of extracorporeal shock waves. Shock Waves 4:55–72

    Google Scholar 

  39. ECMUS Safety Committee (1999) Tutorial paper: Safety of ultrasonic contrast agents. www.efsumb.org/tutpap11.htm Accessed 14.12.2004

    Google Scholar 

  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 14.12.2004

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Rikshospitalet University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    Jarl Å. Jakobsen

  2. Department of Radiology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Louvain, Belgium

    Raymond Oyen

  3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology 54E2, Copenhagen University Hospital at Herlev, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730, Herlev, Denmark

    Henrik S. Thomsen

  4. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Sheffield, S57AU, UK

    Sameh K. Morcos

Authors
  1. Jarl Å. Jakobsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raymond Oyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Henrik S. Thomsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sameh K. Morcos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

Members of Contrast Media Safety Committee of European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henrik S. Thomsen.

Additional information

Members of the Committee: H.S. Thomsen (Chairman, Denmark), S.K. Morcos (Secretary, UK), T. Almén (Sweden), P. Aspelin (Sweden), M.F. Bellin (France), H. Flaten (Amersham Health, Norway), J.Å. Jakobsen (Norway), A. Löwe (Schering, Germany), R. Oyen (Belgium), A. Spinazzi (Bracco, Italy), F. Stacul (Italy), A.J. van der Molen (The Netherlands), J.A.W. Webb (UK).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jakobsen, J.Å., Oyen, R., Thomsen, H.S. et al. Safety of ultrasound contrast agents. Eur Radiol 15, 941–945 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2601-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2601-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation