Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ultraschallkontrastmittel: Substanzklassen, Pharmakokinetik, klinische Anwendungen, Sicherheitsaspekte

Ultrasound contrast agents: substance classes, pharmacokinetics, clinical indications, safety profile

  • Ultraschallkontrastmittel
  • Published:
Der Radiologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Ultraschallkontrastmittel haben in den letzten Jahren eine laufende Weiterentwicklung und Verbesserung erfahren. Eine größere mechanische Stabilität und verbesserte akustische Eigenschaften, kombiniert mit neuen kontrastspezifischen Ultraschallsequenzen, haben die potenziellen Untersuchungsmöglichkeiten deutlich erhöht. Kontrastmittelunterstützte Ultraschalluntersuchungen sind oftmals nicht mehr als ergänzende, sondern primäre Untersuchungsmodalität anzusehen. Dieser Artikel gibt eine Übersicht über die verschiedenen Substanzklassen und deren chemische Zusammensetzung sowie die wichtigsten pharmakokinetischen Aspekte. Zusammengefasst werden ferner die wichtigsten klinischen etablierten bzw. publizierten klinischen Anwendungen und Ausblicke auf neue Anwendungen. Abschließend wird noch auf das Sicherheitsprofil dieser Präparate eingegangen, welches aufgrund der zunehmend verbreiteten Anwendung ebenfalls einen wichtigen Stellenwert einnimmt.

Abstract

Ultrasound contrast agents (UCA) have undergone constant development and improvement in recent years. Greater mechanical stability and improved acoustic properties, combined with new contrast-specific ultrasound sequences, have broadened the potential fields for investigation considerably. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound studies will no longer be complementary investigations, but will be considered as primary techniques. This review article provides a survey of the different drugs used, their chemical properties, and their pharmacokinetic aspects. Summarized are the most important established and published indications for the use of UCA together with an outlook for future applications. Finally this paper discusses the safety profile of these agents, which has become important due to the increasing use of these agents.

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

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Albrecht T, Urbank A, Mahler M et al. (1998) Prolongation and optimization of Doppler enhancement with a microbubble US contrast agent by using continuous infusion: preliminary experience. Radiology 207: 339–347

    Google Scholar 

  2. Albrecht T, Blomley MJ, Cosgrove DO et al. (1999) Transit-time studies with levovist in patients with and without hepatic cirrhosis: a promising new diagnostic tool. Eur Radiol 9 [Suppl 3]: S377–381

  3. Albrecht T, Hoffmann CW, Schmitz SA et al. (2001) Phase-inversion sonography during the liver-specific late phase of contrast enhancement: improved detection of liver metastases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176: 1191–1198

    Google Scholar 

  4. Albrecht T, Blomley M, Bolondi L et al. (2004) Guidelines for the use of contrast agents in ultrasound. Ultraschall Med 25: 249–256

    Google Scholar 

  5. Albrecht T, Hohmann J, Oldenburg A, Skrok J, Wolf KJ (2004) Detection and characterization of liver metastases. Eur Radiol 14 [Suppl 8]: P25–33

  6. Argalia G, De Bernardis S, Mariani D et al. (2002) Ultrasonographic contrast agent: evaluation of time-intensity curves in the characterization of solitary thyroid nodules. Radiol Med (Torino) 103: 407–413

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ascenti G, Zimbaro G, Mazziotti S, Gaeta M, Settineri N, Scribano E (2001) Usefulness of power Doppler and contrast-enhanced sonography in the differentiation of hyperechoic renal masses. Abdom Imaging 26: 654–660

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ascenti G, Zimbaro G, Mazziotti S, Gaeta M, Lamberto S, Scribano E (2001) Contrast-enhanced power Doppler US in the diagnosis of renal pseudotumors. Eur Radiol 11: 2496–2499

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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: 481–487

    Google Scholar 

  10. Barr R (2002) Seeking consensus: contrast ultrasound in radiology. Eur J Radiol 41: 207–216

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bauer A, Solbiati L, Weissman N (2002) Ultrasound imaging with SonoVue: low mechanical index real-time imaging. Acad Radiol 9 [Suppl 2]: S282–284

  12. Bendick PJ, Bove PG, Long GW, Zelenock GB, Brown OW, Shanley CJ (2003) Efficacy of ultrasound scan contrast agents in the noninvasive follow-up of aortic stent grafts. J Vasc Surg 37: 381–385

    Google Scholar 

  13. Blomley MJ, Albrecht T, Cosgrove DO et al. (1999) Stimulated acoustic emission to image a late liver and spleen-specific phase of levovist in normal volunteers and patients with and without liver disease. Ultrasound Med Biol 25: 1341–1352

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD (2004) Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 232: 735–738

    Google Scholar 

  15. Carroll BA, Turner RJ, Tickner EG, Boyle DB, Young SW (1980) Gelatin encapsulated nitrogen microbubbles as ultrasonic contrast agents. Invest Radiol 15: 260–266

    Google Scholar 

  16. Correas JM, Burns PN, Lai X, Qi X (2000) Infusion versus bolus of an ultrasound contrast agent: in vivo dose-response measurements of BR1. Invest Radiol 35: 72–79

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cosgrove D (2004) Future prospects for SonoVue and CPS. Eur Radiol 14 [Suppl 8]: P116–124

  18. Cosgrove D (2004) The advances are significant improvements in both the microbubbles used as contrast agents and in the software that allows their selective detection. Eur Radiol 14 [Suppl 8]: P1–3

    Google Scholar 

  19. Darge K, Moeller RT, Trusen A, Butter F, Gordjani N, Riedmiller H (2005) Diagnosis of vesicoureteric reflux with low-dose contrast-enhanced harmonic ultrasound imaging. Pediatr Radiol 35: 73–78

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dietrich CF (2002) 3D real time contrast enhanced ultrasonography, a new technique. Rofo 174: 160–163

    Google Scholar 

  21. EMEA (2004) Sonovue — new contraindications in patients with heart disease. CPMP 212: 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  22. Feinstein SB, Ten Cate FJ, Zwehl W et al. (1984) Two-dimensional contrast echocardiography. I. In vitro development and quantitative analysis of echo contrast agents. J Am Coll Cardiol 3: 14–20

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fritzsch T, Schartl M, Siegert J (1988) Preclinical and clinical results with an ultrasonic contrast agent. Invest Radiol 23 [Suppl 1]: S302–305

    Google Scholar 

  24. Giannoni MF, Palombo G, Sbarigia E, Speziale F, Zaccaria A, Fiorani P (2003) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging for aortic stent-graft surveillance. J Endovasc Ther 10: 208–217

    Google Scholar 

  25. Goldberg BB (1976) Ultrasonic cholangiography. Gray-scale B-scan evaluation of the common bile duct. Radiology 118: 401–404

    Google Scholar 

  26. Goldberg BB, Merton DA, Liu JB et al. (2004) Sentinel lymph nodes in a swine model with melanoma: contrast-enhanced lymphatic US. Radiology 230: 727–734

    Google Scholar 

  27. Greis C (2004) Technology overview: SonoVue (Bracco, Milan). Eur Radiol 14 [Suppl 8]: P11–15

  28. 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 

  29. Huber S, Helbich T, Kettenbach J, Dock W, Zuna I, Delorme S (1998) Effects of a microbubble contrast agent on breast tumors: computer-assisted quantitative assessment with color Doppler US — early experience. Radiology 208: 485–489

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hutter JC, Luu HM, Mehlhaff PM, Killam AL, Dittrich HC (1999) Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for fluorocarbon elimination after the administration of an octafluoropropane-albumin microsphere sonographic contrast agent. J Ultrasound Med 18: 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kim JH, Eun HW, Lee HK et al. (2003) Renal perfusion abnormality. Coded harmonic angio US with contrast agent. Acta Radiol 44: 166–171

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Koike H, Tomita N, Azuma H et al. (2005) An efficient gene transfer method mediated by ultrasound and microbubbles into the kidney. J Gene Med 7: 108–116

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kono Y, Pinell SP, SirLin CB et al. (2004) Carotid arteries: contrast-enhanced US angiography-preliminary clinical experience. Radiology 230: 561–568

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kopitzko A, Cornely D, Reither K, Wolf KJ, Albrecht T (2004) Low contrast dose voiding urosonography in children with phase inversion imaging. Eur Radiol 14: 2290–2296

    Google Scholar 

  35. Krestan CR, Riedl C, Memarsadeghi M, Rudas M, Pfarl G, Helbich TH (2002) 3D-power Doppler ultrasound of breast lesions with a microbubble contrast agent. Acad Radiol 9 [Suppl 2]: S384–385

  36. Krestan CR, Herneth AM, Niederle B, Weber M, Imhof H, Czerny C (2004) Pulse-inversion harmonic contrast imaging after i.v. administration of sonovue for differentiation of benign and malignant thyroid nodules. Radiol Soc North Am

  37. Lim AK, Patel N, Eckersley RJ, Taylor-Robinson SD, Cosgrove DO, Blomley MJ (2004) Evidence for spleen-specific uptake of a microbubble contrast agent: a quantitative study in healthy volunteers. Radiology 231: 785–788

    Google Scholar 

  38. Marshall M, Halligan S, Eckersley RJ et al. (2005) A novel technique to measure splanchnic transit time using microbubble ultrasound. Invest Radiol 40: 80–84

    Google Scholar 

  39. Martegani A, Aiani L, Borghi C (2004) The use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in large vessels. Eur Radiol 14 [Suppl 8]: P73–86

    Google Scholar 

  40. Mattrey RF, Leopold GR, van Sonnenberg E, Gosink BB, Scheible FW, Long DM (1983) Perfluorochemicals as liver- and spleen-seeking ultrasound contrast agents. J Ultrasound Med 2: 173–176

    Google Scholar 

  41. Napoli V, Bargellini I, Sardella SG et al. (2004) Abdominal aortic aneurysm: contrast-enhanced US for missed endoleaks after endoluminal repair. Radiology 233: 217–225

    Google Scholar 

  42. Oldenburg A, Hohmann J, Skrok J, Albrecht T (2004) Imaging of paediatric splenic injury with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Pediatr Radiol 34: 351–354

    Google Scholar 

  43. Phillips P, Gardner E (2004) Contrast-agent detection and quantification. Eur Radiol 14 [Suppl 8]: P4–10

    Google Scholar 

  44. Poletti PA, Platon A, Becker CD et al. (2004) Blunt abdominal trauma: does the use of a second-generation sonographic contrast agent help to detect solid organ injuries? AJR Am J Roentgenol 183: 1293–1301

    Google Scholar 

  45. Price RJ, Kaul S (2002) Contrast ultrasound targeted drug and gene delivery: an update on a new therapeutic modality. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther 7: 171–180

    Google Scholar 

  46. Radmayr C, Oswald J, Klauser A, Bartsch G, Frauscher F (2002) Contrast-medium enhanced reflux ultrasound in children. A comparison with radiologic imaging up to now. Urologe A-41: 548–551

    Google Scholar 

  47. Schlief R, Schurmann R, Niendorf HP (1996) Blood-pool echo enhancement after intravenous injection of galactose-based microbubbles: results from European phase III clinical trials in Doppler sonography. Acad Radiol 3 [Suppl 2]: S466–467

  48. Schneider M (1999) Characteristics of SonoVuetrade mark. Echocardiography 16: 743–746

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  50. Uchimoto R, Niwa K, Eguchi H et al. (1999) In vivo kinetics of microbubbles of SH U 508 A (Levovist): comparison with indocyanine green in rabbits. Ultrasound Med Biol 25: 1365–1370

    Google Scholar 

  51. Unger EC, McCreery TP, Sweitzer RH, Caldwell VE, Wu Y (1998) Acoustically active lipospheres containing paclitaxel: a new therapeutic ultrasound contrast agent. Invest Radiol 33: 886–892

    Google Scholar 

  52. Valentini AL, De Gaetano AM, Minordi LM et al. (2004) Contrast-enhanced voiding US for grading of reflux in adult patients prior to antireflux ureteral implantation. Radiology 233: 35–39

    Google Scholar 

  53. Vassiou K, Vlychou M, Moisidou R, Sioka A, Fezoulidis IV (2004) Contrast-enhanced sonographic detection of vesicoureteral reflux in children: comparison with voiding cystourethrography. Rofo 176: 1453–1457

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wedegartner U, Lorenzen M, Nagel HD, Weber C, Adam G (2004) Diagnostic imaging in polytrauma: comparison of radiation exposure from whole-body MSCT and conventional radiography with organ-specific CT. Rofo 176: 1039–1044

    Google Scholar 

  55. Wei K, Le E, Bin JP, Coggins M, Thorpe J, Kaul S (2001) Quantification of renal blood flow with contrast-enhanced unltrasound. J Am Coll Cardil 37: 1135–1140

    Google Scholar 

  56. Yang WT, Metreweli C, Lam PK, Chang J (2001) Benign and malignant breast masses and axillary nodes: evaluation with echo-enhanced color power Doppler US. Radiology 220: 795–802

    Google Scholar 

  57. Yucel C, Ozdemir H, Akpek S, Gurel K, Kapucu LO, Arac M (2001) Renal infarct: contrast-enhanced power Doppler sonographic findings. J Clin Ultrasound 29: 237–242

    Google Scholar 

  58. Zachary JF, Hartleben SA, Frizzell LA, O’Brien WD Jr (2002) Arhythmias in rat hearts exposed to pulsed ultrasound after intravenous injection of a contrast agent. J Ultrasound Med 21: 1347–1356; discussion 1343–1345

    Google Scholar 

  59. Zdemir A, Kilic K, Ozdemir H, Yucel C, Andac S, Colak M (2004) Contrast-enhanced power Doppler sonography in breast lesions: effect on differential diagnosis after mammography and gray scale sonography. J Ultrasound Med 23: 183–195; quiz 196–187

    Google Scholar 

  60. Becher P, Burns PN (2000) Handbook of contrast echocardiography. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

Download references

Interessenkonflikt:

Der korrespondierende Autor versichert, dass keine Verbindungen mit einer Firma, deren Produkt in dem Artikel genannt ist, oder einer Firma, die ein Konkurrenzprodukt vertreibt, bestehen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universitätsklinik für Radiodiagnostik, Medizinische Universität Wien

    C. Krestan

  2. Universitätsklinik für Radiodiagnostik, Medizinische Universität, Währinger Gürtel 18–20, A-1090, Wien, Österreich

    C. Krestan

Authors
  1. C. Krestan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Krestan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krestan, C. Ultraschallkontrastmittel: Substanzklassen, Pharmakokinetik, klinische Anwendungen, Sicherheitsaspekte. Radiologe 45, 513–519 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-005-1191-4

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00117-005-1191-4

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation