Literature DB >> 27277725

A fundamental study for quantitative measurement of ultrasound contrast concentration by low mechanical index contrast ultrasonography.

Satoshi Yamada1, Kaoru Komuro2, Mariko Taniguchi3, Ayumi Uranishi3, Hiroshi Komatsu4, Toshihiko Asanuma3, Fuminobu Ishikura3, Hisao Onozuka4, Taisei Mikami5, Hiroyuki Tsutsui4, Shintaro Beppu3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In high mechanical index (MI) contrast ultrasonography it has been shown that the power of contrast signal intensity (CI) has a strong linear correlation with the concentration of the ultrasound contrast agent under conditions of constant applied acoustic pressure. However, it is unclear whether the linearity is preserved in low-MI contrast ultrasonography. Thus, we investigated the relationship between ultrasound contrast concentration and CI in vitro.
METHODS: Solutions of the ultrasound contrast agents Definity and Imagent were prepared at concentrations of 0.5, 2, 8, 32, and 128 μl/l. Placing a jelly block between the transducer and the solution, the solutions were transmitted using pulse subtraction imaging with an MI of 0.05, 0.1, and 0.5. CI was measured in dB in a region of interest 3 mm in height placed just below the border between the jelly and the solution. Data were plotted using double logarithm scales, where the concentration was expressed in dB as 10 × log (concentration).
RESULTS: CI in dB had a strong linear correlation with concentration in dB for both agents with any MI. Best fitted slopes were close to 1, indicating that the power of CI is proportional to the concentration.
CONCLUSIONS: In low-MI contrast ultrasonography, the power of CI is proportional to contrast concentration, and CI in dB is logarithmic to the concentration. Thus, the microbubble concentration can be quantitatively measured even in low-MI contrast ultrasonography.

Keywords:  contrast agent; contrast ultrasonography; mechanical index; pulse subtraction imaging

Year:  2006        PMID: 27277725     DOI: 10.1007/s10396-006-0089-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)        ISSN: 1346-4523            Impact factor:   1.314


  17 in total

1.  Assessment of resting perfusion with myocardial contrast echocardiography: theoretical and practical considerations.

Authors:  J R Lindner; F S Villanueva; J M Dent; K Wei; J Sklenar; S Kaul
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.749

2.  Quantification of microbubble destruction of three fluorocarbon-filled ultrasonic contrast agents.

Authors:  C M Moran; T Anderson; S D Pye; V Sboros; W N McDicken
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 2.998

3.  Novel quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion by harmonic power Doppler imaging during myocardial contrast echocardiography.

Authors:  S Yamada; K Komuro; T Mikami; N Kudo; H Onozuka; K Goto; S Fujii; K Yamamoto; A Kitabatake
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 5.994

4.  Basis for detection of stenosis using venous administration of microbubbles during myocardial contrast echocardiography: bolus or continuous infusion?

Authors:  K Wei; A R Jayaweera; S Firoozan; A Linka; D M Skyba; S Kaul
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 24.094

5.  Quantification of myocardial blood flow with ultrasound-induced destruction of microbubbles administered as a constant venous infusion.

Authors:  K Wei; A R Jayaweera; S Firoozan; A Linka; D M Skyba; S Kaul
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1998-02-10       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 6.  Coronary and myocardial blood volumes: noninvasive tools to assess the coronary microcirculation?

Authors:  S Kaul; A R Jayaweera
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1997-08-05       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  Quantitative echo contrast concentration measurement by Doppler sonography.

Authors:  K Q Schwarz; G P Bezante; X Chen; R Schlief
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.998

8.  Imagent improves endocardial border delineation, inter-reader agreement, and the accuracy of segmental wall motion assessment.

Authors:  Navin C Nanda; Dalane W Kitzman; Howard C Dittrich; Gail Hall
Journal:  Echocardiography       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 1.724

9.  Myocardial contrast echocardiography with a new calibration method can estimate myocardial viability in patients with myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Akio Yano; Hiroshi Ito; Katsuomi Iwakura; Ryusuke Kimura; Kouji Tanaka; Atsunori Okamura; Shigeo Kawano; Tohru Masuyama; Kenshi Fujii
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2004-05-19       Impact factor: 24.094

10.  Identification of hibernating myocardium with quantitative intravenous myocardial contrast echocardiography: comparison with dobutamine echocardiography and thallium-201 scintigraphy.

Authors:  Sarah Shimoni; Nikolaos G Frangogiannis; Constadina J Aggeli; Kesavan Shan; Mario S Verani; Miguel A Quinones; Rafael Espada; George V Letsou; Gerald M Lawrie; William L Winters; Michael J Reardon; William A Zoghbi
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2003-02-04       Impact factor: 29.690

View more
  1 in total

1.  Percutaneous transluminal septal myocardial ablation for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Katsufumi Mizushige; Kazushi Murakami; Teppei Tsuji; Isao Kondo; Xie Lu; Atsufumi Tomohiro
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 1.314

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.