Literature DB >> 7917342

Effect of static pressure on the disappearance rate of specific echocardiographic contrast agents.

C Vuille1, M Nidorf, R L Morrissey, J B Newell, A E Weyman, M H Picard.   

Abstract

Contrast echocardiography has been applied to identify cardiac structures, shunts, and perfusion territories. Most recently, quantification of flow has been proposed based on disappearance of contrast intensity. This requires that contrast agents are stable and produce a predictable effect. To assess the possible effect of pressure on their stability, the rates of backscatter decay of four echocardiographic contrast agents (Albunex, Levovist, agitated Angiovist, and agitated saline solution) exposed to constant pressures (0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 mm Hg) were quantitated. Contrast was recorded by echocardiography and measured to construct time-intensity curves. The peak decay rate for each agent at each pressure was determined. For all four agents, contrast intensity (I) decreased over time and could be described by the sigmoid function: I = a [e-lambda(t-ts)/1 + e-lambda(t-ts)] + C. Peak decay rate was significantly affected by pressure (p < 0.005) in a proportionate fashion. At pressures of 0, 100, and 200 mm Hg, the rates increased for each agent in the following fashion: Albunex, 0.144 +/- 0.109 to 0.410 +/- 0.142 to 1.442 +/- 0.309; Levovist, 0.060 +/- 0.023 to 0.162 +/- 0.049 to 0.495 +/- 0.142; Angiovist, 0.089 +/- 0.028 to 0.166 +/- 0.057 to 0.224 +/- 0.027; and saline solution, 0.068 +/- 0.039 to 0.110 +/- 0.036 to 0.154 +/- 0.057. The effect of pressure on the peak rate of contrast disappearance (lambda) was significantly different among agents (p < 0.001). Thus attempts to quantitate blood flow with contrast agents must take into account the influence of pressure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7917342     DOI: 10.1016/s0894-7317(14)80192-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr        ISSN: 0894-7317            Impact factor:   5.251


  8 in total

1.  Changes in myocardial blood volume over a wide range of coronary driving pressures: role of capillaries beyond the autoregulatory range.

Authors:  D E Le; A R Jayaweera; K Wei; M P Coggins; J R Lindner; S Kaul
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 5.994

2.  Potentiating intra-arterial sonothrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke by the addition of the ultrasound contrast agents (Optison™ & SonoVue(®)).

Authors:  Azita Soltani; Ruchi Singhal; Melissa Obtera; Ronald A Roy; Wayne M Clark; Douglas R Hansmann
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.300

Review 3.  Contrast echocardiography 1996. A review.

Authors:  H R Villarraga; D A Foley; S L Mulvagh
Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J       Date:  1996

Review 4.  Insights into the assessment of myocardial perfusion offered by different cardiac imaging modalities.

Authors:  J R Lindner; S Kaul
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  1995 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging: a review of sources of variability.

Authors:  M-X Tang; H Mulvana; T Gauthier; A K P Lim; D O Cosgrove; R J Eckersley; E Stride
Journal:  Interface Focus       Date:  2011-05-18       Impact factor: 3.906

6.  Effect of pressure on intracardiac backscatter from microbubbles.

Authors:  Y Deng; C Li; Q Chang
Journal:  J Tongji Med Univ       Date:  2001

7.  Stability of echogenic liposomes as a blood pool ultrasound contrast agent in a physiologic flow phantom.

Authors:  Kirthi Radhakrishnan; Kevin J Haworth; Shao-Ling Huang; Melvin E Klegerman; David D McPherson; Christy K Holland
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2012-08-25       Impact factor: 2.998

8.  Premature Destruction of Microbubbles during Voiding Urosonography in Children and Possible Underlying Mechanisms: Post Hoc Analysis from the Prospective Study.

Authors:  Maciej Piskunowicz; Dominik Swieton; Dorota Rybczynska; Arkadiusz Szarmach; Edyta Szurowska; Menno Pruijm
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-11-20       Impact factor: 3.411

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.