BACKGROUND: The etiology of flank pain sometimes experienced during the administration of ultrasound contrast agents is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate whether microbubble ultrasound contrast agents are retained within the renal microcirculation, which could lead to either flow disturbance or local release of vasoactive and pain mediators downstream from complement activation. METHODS: Retention of lipid-shelled microbubbles in the renal microcirculation of mice was assessed by confocal fluorescent microscopy and contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging with dose-escalating intravenous injection. Studies were performed with size-segregated microbubbles to investigate physical entrapment, after glycocalyx degradation and in wild-type and C3-deficient mice to investigate complement-mediated retention. Urinary bradykinin was measured before and after microbubble administrations. Renal contrast-enhanced ultrasound in human subjects (n = 13) was performed 7 to 10 min after the completion of lipid microbubble administration. RESULTS: In both mice and humans, microbubble retention was detected in the renal cortex by persistent contrast-enhanced ultrasound signal enhancement. Microbubble retention in mice was linearly related to dose and occurred almost exclusively in cortical glomerular microvessels. Microbubble retention did not affect microsphere-derived renal blood flow. Microbubble retention was not influenced by glycocalyx degradation or by microbubble size, thereby excluding lodging, but was reduced by 90% (P < .01) in C3-deficient mice. Urinary bradykinin increased by 65% 5 min after microbubble injection. CONCLUSIONS: Lipid-shelled microbubbles are retained in the renal cortex because of complement-mediated interactions with glomerular microvascular endothelium. Microbubble retention does not adversely affect renal perfusion but does generate complement-related intermediates that are known to mediate nociception and could be responsible for flank pain.
BACKGROUND: The etiology of flank pain sometimes experienced during the administration of ultrasound contrast agents is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate whether microbubble ultrasound contrast agents are retained within the renal microcirculation, which could lead to either flow disturbance or local release of vasoactive and pain mediators downstream from complement activation. METHODS: Retention of lipid-shelled microbubbles in the renal microcirculation of mice was assessed by confocal fluorescent microscopy and contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging with dose-escalating intravenous injection. Studies were performed with size-segregated microbubbles to investigate physical entrapment, after glycocalyx degradation and in wild-type and C3-deficientmice to investigate complement-mediated retention. Urinary bradykinin was measured before and after microbubble administrations. Renal contrast-enhanced ultrasound in human subjects (n = 13) was performed 7 to 10 min after the completion of lipid microbubble administration. RESULTS: In both mice and humans, microbubble retention was detected in the renal cortex by persistent contrast-enhanced ultrasound signal enhancement. Microbubble retention in mice was linearly related to dose and occurred almost exclusively in cortical glomerular microvessels. Microbubble retention did not affect microsphere-derived renal blood flow. Microbubble retention was not influenced by glycocalyx degradation or by microbubble size, thereby excluding lodging, but was reduced by 90% (P < .01) in C3-deficientmice. Urinary bradykinin increased by 65% 5 min after microbubble injection. CONCLUSIONS:Lipid-shelled microbubbles are retained in the renal cortex because of complement-mediated interactions with glomerular microvascular endothelium. Microbubble retention does not adversely affect renal perfusion but does generate complement-related intermediates that are known to mediate nociception and could be responsible for flank pain.
Keywords:
CD55; CEU; Complement; Contrast echocardiography; Contrast-enhanced ultrasound; Decay-accelerating factor; MB; MB(+); MB(−); MI; Mechanical index; Microbubbles; Microbubbles with a near neutral charge; Microbubbles with a net negative charge; Microbubbles with a net positive charge; Safety
Authors: Beat A Kaufmann; Miles Lankford; Carolyn Z Behm; Brent A French; Alexander L Klibanov; Yaqin Xu; Jonathan R Lindner Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Kevin Wei; Sharon L Mulvagh; Lisa Carson; Ravin Davidoff; Ruvin Gabriel; Richard A Grimm; Stephanie Wilson; Lorrie Fane; Charles A Herzog; William A Zoghbi; Rhonda Taylor; Michael Farrar; Farooq A Chaudhry; Thomas R Porter; Waleed Irani; Roberto M Lang Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2008-10-10 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Sahar S Abdelmoneim; Mathieu Bernier; Christopher G Scott; Abhijeet Dhoble; Sue Ann C Ness; Mary E Hagen; Stuart Moir; Robert B McCully; Patricia A Pellikka; Sharon L Mulvagh Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2009-09
Authors: C Aggeli; G Giannopoulos; G Roussakis; E Christoforatou; G Marinos; C Toli; C Pitsavos; C Stefanadis Journal: Heart Date: 2008-05-12 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Victoria H J Roberts; Jamie O Lo; Jennifer A Salati; Katherine S Lewandowski; Jonathan R Lindner; Terry K Morgan; Antonio E Frias Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Reshani H Perera; Hanping Wu; Pubudu Peiris; Christopher Hernandez; Alan Burke; Helen Zhang; Agata A Exner Journal: Nanomedicine Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 5.307