Literature DB >> 36136887

A Comparison of the Sensitivity of Contrast-Specific Imaging Modes on Clinical and Preclinical Ultrasound Scanners.

Carmel M Moran1, Charles Arthur1, Emilio Quaia1,2.   

Abstract

Ultrasonic contrast agents are used routinely to aid clinical diagnosis. All premium- and mid-range scanners utilise contrast-specific imaging techniques to preferentially isolate and display the nonlinear signals generated from the microbubbles when insonated with a series of ultrasound pulses. In this manuscript the abilities of four premium ultrasound scanners to detect and display the ultrasound signal from two commercially available contrast agents-SonoVue and DEFINITY®-are compared. A flow phantom was built using tubes with internal diameters of 1.6 mm and 3.2 mm, suspended at depths of 1, 5 and 8 cm and embedded in tissue-mimicking material. Dilute solutions of SonoVue and DEFINITY® were pumped through the phantom at 0.25 mL/s and 1.5 mL/s. Four transducers were used to scan the tubes-a GE Logiq E9 (C2-9) curvilinear probe, a Philips iU22 L9-3 linear array probe, an Esaote MyLab Twice linear array LA523 (4-13 MHz) and a Fujifilm VisualSonics Vevo3100 MX250 (15-30 MHz) linear array probe. We defined a new parameter to compare the ability of the ultrasound scanners to display the contrast enhancement. This was defined as the ratio of grey-scale intensity ratio in contrast-specific imaging mode relative to the B-mode intensity from the same region-of-interest within the corresponding B-mode image. The study demonstrated that the flow rates used in this study had no effect on the contrast-specific imaging mode to B-mode (CSIM-BM) ratio for the three clinical scanners studied, with SonoVue demonstrating broadly similar CSIM-BM ratios across all 3 clinical scanners. DEFINITY® also displayed similar results to SonoVue except when insonated with the Esaote MyLab Twice LA523 transducer, where it demonstrated significantly higher CSIM-BM ratios at superficial depths.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Definity; SonoVue; contrast; contrast-specific imaging; preclinical ultrasound

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36136887      PMCID: PMC9498646          DOI: 10.3390/tomography8050191

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tomography        ISSN: 2379-1381


  19 in total

1.  The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications.

Authors:  F Piscaglia; C Nolsøe; C F Dietrich; D O Cosgrove; O H Gilja; M Bachmann Nielsen; T Albrecht; L Barozzi; M Bertolotto; O Catalano; M Claudon; D A Clevert; J M Correas; M D'Onofrio; F M Drudi; J Eyding; M Giovannini; M Hocke; A Ignee; E M Jung; A S Klauser; N Lassau; E Leen; G Mathis; A Saftoiu; G Seidel; P S Sidhu; G ter Haar; D Timmerman; H P Weskott
Journal:  Ultraschall Med       Date:  2011-08-26       Impact factor: 6.548

2.  Broadband Acoustic Measurement of an Agar-Based Tissue-Mimicking-Material: A Longitudinal Study.

Authors:  Adela Rabell Montiel; Jacinta E Browne; Stephen D Pye; Tom A Anderson; Carmel M Moran
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 2.998

3.  An EFSUMB introduction into Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (DCE-US) for quantification of tumour perfusion.

Authors:  C F Dietrich; M A Averkiou; J-M Correas; N Lassau; E Leen; F Piscaglia
Journal:  Ultraschall Med       Date:  2012-07-27       Impact factor: 6.548

Review 4.  Imaging Methods for Ultrasound Contrast Agents.

Authors:  Michalakis A Averkiou; Matthew F Bruce; Jeffry E Powers; Paul S Sheeran; Peter N Burns
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2019-12-06       Impact factor: 2.998

Review 5.  Three Decades of Ultrasound Contrast Agents: A Review of the Past, Present and Future Improvements.

Authors:  Peter Frinking; Tim Segers; Ying Luan; François Tranquart
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Acoustic characterization of tissue-mimicking materials for ultrasound perfusion imaging research.

Authors:  Peiran Chen; Andreas M A O Pollet; Anastasiia Panfilova; Meiyi Zhou; Simona Turco; Jaap M J den Toonder; Massimo Mischi
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2021-10-13       Impact factor: 2.998

7.  Monodisperse versus Polydisperse Ultrasound Contrast Agents: In Vivo Sensitivity and safety in Rat and Pig.

Authors:  Alexandre Helbert; Emmanuel Gaud; Tim Segers; Catherine Botteron; Peter Frinking; Victor Jeannot
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2020-09-30       Impact factor: 2.998

8.  Wall-less flow phantom for high-frequency ultrasound applications.

Authors:  David A Kenwright; Nicola Laverick; Tom Anderson; Carmel M Moran; Peter R Hoskins
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 2.998

9.  Optimising phase and amplitude modulation schemes for imaging microbubble contrast agents at low acoustic power.

Authors:  Robert J Eckersley; Chien Ting Chin; Peter N Burns
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.998

10.  In vitro acoustic characterization of three phospholipid ultrasound contrast agents from 12 to 43 MHz.

Authors:  Chao Sun; Vassilis Sboros; Mairead B Butler; Carmel M Moran
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 2.998

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.