Contrast Media pp 229-235 | Cite as

Ultrasonographic Contrast Media

Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)


Different microbubble ultrasound contrast agents have been approved for abdominal and cardiac applications, and their use has increased over recent years. Experimental studies with high power ultrasound beams have shown that microbubbles produce bioeffects in the cells of nearby tissues as a result of cavitation. To prevent these effects, the power of the ultrasound beam should be kept below the cavitation threshold. Clinically, most adverse reactions result in minor, self-resolving events such as headache, nausea, altered taste, and a sensation of heat. Anaphylactoid reactions, however, may rarely occur and usually resolve spontaneously or with symptomatic treatment. In a few cases anaphylactoid reactions may be severe, or even fatal. Despite this, microbubble contrast agents are safe by any reasonable standard, and certainly are safe compared to iodine- and gadolinium-based contrast agents.


Contrast Agent Mechanical Index Ultrasound Contrast Agent Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy Thermal Index 


  1. Abdelmoneim SS, Bernier M, Scott CG et al (2009) Safety of contrast agent use during stress echocardiography: a 4-year experience from a single-center cohort study of 26,774 patients. JACC Cardiovasc imaging 2:1048–1056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aggeli C, Giannopoulos G, Roussakis G et al (2008) Safety of myocardial flash-contrast echocardiography in combination with dobutamine stress testing for the detection of ischaemia in 5,250 studies. Heart 94:1571–1577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aggeli C, Felekos I, Siasos G et al (2012) Ultrasound contrast agents: updated data on safety profile. Curr Pharm Des 18:2253–2258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anantharam B, Chahal N, Chelliah R et al (2009) Safety of contrast in stress echocardiography in stable patients and in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome but negative 12-hour troponin. Am J Cardiol 104:14–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ascenti G, Zimbaro G, Mazziotti S et al (2004) Harmonic US imaging of vesicoureteric reflux in children: usefulness of a second generation US contrast agent. Pediatr Radiol 34:481–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnett SB, Duck F, Ziskin M (2007) Recommendations on the safe use of ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol 33:173–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borges AC, Walde T, Reibis RK et al (2002) Does contrast echocardiography with Optison induce myocardial necrosis in humans? J Am Soc Echocardiogr 15:1080–1086PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brayman AA, Miller MW (1997) Acoustic cavitation nuclei survive the apparent ultrasonic destruction of Albunex microspheres. Ultrasound Med Biol 23:793–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carstensen EL, Kelly P, Church CC et al (1993) Lysis of erythrocytes by exposure to CW ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 19:147–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carstensen EL, Gracewski S, Dalecki D (2000) The search for cavitation in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol 26:1377–1385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapman S, Windle J, Xie F et al (2005) Incidence of cardiac arrhythmias with therapeutic versus diagnostic ultrasound and intravenous microbubbles. J Ultrasound Med 24:1099–1107PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen S, Kroll MH, Shohet RV et al (2002) Bioeffects of myocardial contrast microbubble destruction by echocardiography. Echocardiography 19:495–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Choi JJ, Selert K, Vlachos F et al (2011) Noninvasive and localized neuronal delivery using short ultrasonic pulses and microbubbles. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 108:16539–16544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Church CC, Carstensen EL, Nyborg WL et al (2008) The risk of exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in postnatal subjects: nonthermal mechanisms. J Ultrasound Med 27:565–592 (quiz 93–96)Google Scholar
  15. Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI et al (2013) Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver—update 2012: a WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultrasound Med Biol 39:187–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dalecki D (2007) WFUMB safety symposium on echo-contrast agents: bioeffects of ultrasound contrast agents in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol 33:205–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dalecki D, Raeman CH, Child SZ et al (1997) Remnants of Albunex nucleate acoustic cavitation. Ultrasound Med Biol 23:1405–1412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dalecki D, Rota C, Raeman CH, Child SZ (2005) Premature cardiac contractions produced by ultrasound and microbubble contrast agents in mice. Acoust Res Lett Online 6:221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Delius M, Hoffmann E, Steinbeck G, Conzen P (1994) Biological effects of shock waves: induction of arrhythmia in piglet hearts. Ultrasound Med Biol 20:279–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deng CX, Sieling F, Pan H, Cui J (2004) Ultrasound-induced cell membrane porosity. Ultrasound Med Biol 30:519–526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dijkmans PA, Visser CA, Kamp O (2005) Adverse reactions to ultrasound contrast agents: is the risk worth the benefit? Eur J Echocardiogr 6:363–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dijkmans PA, Juffermans LJ, van Dijk J et al (2009) Safety and feasibility of real time adenosine myocardial contrast echocardiography with emphasis on induction of arrhythmias: a study in healthy volunteers and patients with stable coronary artery disease. Echocardiography 26:807–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dolan MS, Gala SS, Dodla S et al (2009) Safety and efficacy of commercially available ultrasound contrast agents for rest and stress echocardiography a multicenter experience. J Am Coll Cardiol 53:32–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Duran C, del Riego J, Riera L et al (2012) Voiding urosonography including urethrosonography: high-quality examinations with an optimised procedure using a second-generation US contrast agent. Pediat Radiol 42:660–667PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. EFSUMB (European Federation of Societies fo Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology)-European Committee of Medical Ultrasound Safety (ECMUS): Clinical Safety Statement for Diagnostic Ultrasound (2011). Available online at: Accessed July 26 2013
  26. European Medicines Agency (EMEA): Initial scientific discussion for the approval of Sonovue (updated until 1 October 2004). Available online at: Accessed July 26 2013
  27. 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 24:129–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fowlkes JB (2008) American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine consensus report on potential bioeffects of diagnostic ultrasound: executive summary. J Ultrasound Med 27:503–515PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Fujishiro S, Mitsumori M, Nishimura Y et al (1998) Increased heating efficiency of hyperthermia using an ultrasound contrast agent: a phantom study. Int J Hyperth 14:495–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gabriel RS, Smyth YM, Menon V et al (2008) Safety of ultrasound contrast agents in stress echocardiography. Am J Cardiol 102:1269–1272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Geleijnse ML, Nemes A, Vletter WB et al (2009) Adverse reactions after the use of sulphur hexafluoride (SonoVue) echo contrast agent. J Cardiovasc Med 10:75–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haggag KJ, Russell D, Walday P et al (1998) Air-filled ultrasound contrast agents do not damage the cerebral microvasculature or brain tissue in rats. Invest Radiol 33:129–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harvey CJ, Blomley MJ, Eckersley RJ, Cosgrove DO (2001) Developments in ultrasound contrast media. Eur Radiol 11:675–689PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hayat SA, Senior R (2005) Safety: the heart of the matter. Eur J Echocardiogr 6:235–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Herzog CA (2008) Incidence of adverse events associated with use of perflutren contrast agents for echocardiography. JAMA 299:2023–2025PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ionescu A (2009) Bubble trouble: anaphylactic shock, threatened myocardial infarction, and transient renal failure after intravenous echo contrast for left ventricular cavity opacification preceding dobutamine stress echo. Eur J Echocardiogr 10:707–710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jakobsen JA, Oyen R, Thomsen HS, Morcos SK (2005) Safety of ultrasound contrast agents. Eur Radiol 15:941–945PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaul S, Wei K (2009) When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Eur J Echocardiogr 10:713–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kis E, Nyitrai A, Varkonyi I et al (2010) Voiding urosonography with second-generation contrast agent versus voiding cystourethrography. Pediat Nephrol 25:2289–2293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kobayashi N, Yasu T, Yamada S et al (2002) Endothelial cell injury in venule and capillary induced by contrast ultrasonography. Ultrasound Med Biol 28:949–956PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kobayashi N, Yasu T, Yamada S et al (2003) Influence of contrast ultrasonography with perflutren lipid microspheres on microvessel injury. Circulation J 67:630–636Google Scholar
  42. Kudo N, Miyaoka T, Okada K et al (2002) Study on mechanism of cell damage caused by microbubbles exposed to ultrasound. In: Proceedings of ultrasonics symposium 2002, IEEE (ed), vol 2, pp 1383–1386Google Scholar
  43. Li P, Cao LQ, Dou CY et al (2003) Impact of myocardial contrast echocardiography on vascular permeability: an in vivo dose response study of delivery mode, pressure amplitude and contrast dose. Ultrasound Med Biol 29:1341–1349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Li P, Armstrong WF, Miller DL (2004) Impact of myocardial contrast echocardiography on vascular permeability: comparison of three different contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol 30:83–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 10:798–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Main ML, Ryan AC, Davis TE et al (2008) 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 102:1742–1746PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 Journal 132:871–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller DL, Bao S (1998) The relationship of scattered subharmonic, 3.3-MHz fundamental and second harmonic signals to damage of monolayer cells by ultrasonically activated Albunex. J Acoust Soc Am 103:1183–1189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Miller DL, Dou C (2004a) Membrane damage thresholds for 1- to 10-MHz pulsed ultrasound exposure of phagocytic cells loaded with contrast agent gas bodies in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol 30:973–977PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Miller DL, Dou C (2004b) Membrane damage thresholds for pulsed or continuous ultrasound in phagocytic cells loaded with contrast agent gas bodies. Ultrasound Med Biol 30:405–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miller DL, Gies RA (1998) Enhancement of ultrasonically-induced hemolysis by perfluorocarbon-based compared to air-based echo-contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol 24:285–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Miller DL, Quddus J (2000a) Diagnostic ultrasound activation of contrast agent gas bodies induces capillary rupture in mice. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 97:10179–10184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Miller DL, Quddus J (2000b) Sonoporation of monolayer cells by diagnostic ultrasound activation of contrast-agent gas bodies. Ultrasound Med Biol 26:661–667PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Miller DL, Li P, Gordon D, Armstrong WF (2005) Histological characterization of microlesions induced by myocardial contrast echocardiography. Echocardiography 22:25–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Miller DL, Averkiou MA, Brayman AA, Everbach EC, Holland CK, Wible JH (2008) Bioeffects considerations for diagnostic ultrasound contrast agents. J Ultrasound Med: Off J Am Inst Ultrasound Med 27:611–632 (quiz 33–36)Google Scholar
  56. Miller DL, Dou C, Lucchesi BR (2011) Are ECG premature complexes induced by ultrasonic cavitation electrophysiological responses to irreversible cardiomyocyte injury? Ultrasound Med Biol 37:312–320PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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 35:80–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mulvagh SL, Rakowski H, Vannan MA et al (2008) American Society of Echocardiography consensus statement on the clinical applications of ultrasonic contrast agents in echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiography 21:1179–1201 (quiz 281)Google Scholar
  59. Mychaskiw G 2nd, Badr AE, Tibbs R et al (2000) Optison (FS069) disrupts the blood-brain barrier in rats. Anesth Analg 91:798–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Myreng Y, Molstad P, Ytre-Arne K et al (1999) Safety of the transpulmonary ultrasound contrast agent NC100100: a clinical and haemodynamic evaluation in patients with suspected or proved coronary artery disease. Heart 82:333–335PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Nucifora G, Marsan NA, Siebelink HM et al (2008) Safety of contrast-enhanced echocardiography within 24 h after acute myocardial infarction. Eur J Echocardiogr 9:816–818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ostensen J, Hede R, Myreng Y et al (1992) Intravenous injection of Albunex microspheres causes thromboxane mediated pulmonary hypertension in pigs, but not in monkeys or rabbits. Acta Physiol Scand 144:307–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Papadopoulou F, Anthopoulou A, Siomou E (2009) Harmonic voiding urosonography with a second-generation contrast agent for the diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux. Pediat Radiol 39:239–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Piscaglia F, Bolondi L (2006) The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations. Ultrasound Med Biol 32:1369–1375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Piscaglia F, Nolsoe C, Dietrich CF al (2012) The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical practice of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall Med 33:33–59Google Scholar
  66. 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 25:991–998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Riccabona M (2012) Application of a second-generation US contrast agent in infants and children—a European questionnaire-based survey. Pediat Radiol 42:1471–1480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Robbin ML, Eisenfeld AJ (1998) Perflenapent emulsion: a US contrast agent for diagnostic radiology–multicenter, double-blind comparison with a placebo. EchoGen Contrast Ultrasound Study Group. Radiology 207:717–722PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Rott HD (1999) Safety of ultrasonic contrast agents. European Committee for Medical Ultrasound Safety. Eur J Ultrasound 9:195–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Senior R, Becher H, Monaghan M et al (2009) Contrast echocardiography: evidence-based recommendations by European Association of Echocardiography. Eur J Echocardiogr 10:194–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Shigeta K, Itoh K, Ookawara S et al (2004) Endothelial cell injury and platelet aggregation induced by contrast ultrasonography in the rat hepatic sinusoid. J Ultrasound Med 23:29–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Skyba DM, Price RJ, Linka AZ et al (1998) Direct in vivo visualization of intravascular destruction of microbubbles by ultrasound and its local effects on tissue. Circulation 98:290–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sokka SD, King R, Hynynen K (2003) MRI-guided gas bubble enhanced ultrasound heating in in vivo rabbit thigh. Phys Med Biol 48:223–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stratmeyer ME, Greenleaf JF, Dalecki D, Salvesen KA (2008) Fetal ultrasound: mechanical effects. J Ultrasound Med 27:597–605 (quiz 6–9)Google Scholar
  75. ter Haar GR (2002) Ultrasonic contrast agents: safety considerations reviewed. Eur J Radiol 41:217–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. ter Haar G (2009) Safety and bio-effects of ultrasound contrast agents. Med Biol Engineer Comput 47:893–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ultrasound (1998a) Free-radical production: its biological consequences. Ultrasound Med Biol 24(Suppl 1):S29–S34Google Scholar
  78. Ultrasound (1998b) Nonthermal issues: cavitation—its nature, detection and measurement. Ultrasound Med Biol 24(Suppl 1):S11–S21Google Scholar
  79. Ultrasound (1998c) Other nonthermal mechanisms: acoustic radiation force and streaming. Ultrasound Med Biol 24(Suppl 1):S23–S28Google Scholar
  80. van Der Wouw PA, Brauns AC, Bailey SE (2000) Premature ventricular contractions during triggered imaging with ultrasound contrast. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 13:288–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Walday P, Ostensen J, Tolleshaug H, Holtz E (1994) Albunex—a new ultrasound contrast agent. Effects on hemodynamics, contrast, and biodistribution in different species. Invest Radiol 29(Suppl 2):S142–S144Google Scholar
  82. Wei K, Mulvagh SL, Carson L et al (2008) The safety of deFinity and Optison for ultrasound image enhancement: a retrospective analysis of 78,383 administered contrast doses. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 21:1202–1206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wei K, Main ML, Lang RM et al (2012) The effect of Definity on systemic and pulmonary hemodynamics in patients. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 25:584–588PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Weiss RJ, Ahmad M, Villanueva F et al (2012) CaRES (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 25:790–795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wible JH Jr, Galen KP, Wojdyla JK (2002) Microbubbles induce renal hemorrhage when exposed to diagnostic ultrasound in anesthetized rats. Ultrasound Med Biol 28:1535–1546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wu J (1998) Temperature rise generated by ultrasound in the presence of contrast agent. Ultrasound Med Biol 24:267–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Yamaya Y, Niizeki K, Kim J et al (2002) Effects of Optison on pulmonary gas exchange and hemodynamics. Ultrasound Med Biol 28:1005–1013PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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 (discussion 3–45)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of TriesteTriesteItaly
  2. 2.Radiology, University Hospitals LeuvenDepartment of Imaging and PathologyLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations