Skip to main content
Download PDF

Update on the safety and efficacy of commercial ultrasound contrast agents in cardiac applications

Echo Research & Practice volume 2, pages R55–R62 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

Ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) are currently used throughout the world in both clinical and research settings. The concept of contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging originated in the late 1960s, and the first commercially available agents were initially developed in the 1980s. Today’s microbubbles are designed for greater utility and are used for both approved and off-label indications. In October 2007, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) imposed additional product label warnings that included serious cardiopulmonary reactions, several new disease-state contraindications, and a mandated 30 min post-procedure monitoring period for the agents Optison and Definity. These additional warnings were prompted by reports of cardiopulmonary reactions that were temporally related but were not clearly attributable to these UCAs. Subsequent published reports over the following months established not only the safety but also the improved efficacy of clinical ultrasound applications with UCAs. The FDA consequently updated the product labeling in June 2008 and reduced contraindications, although it continued to monitor select patients. In addition, a post-marketing program was proposed to the sponsors for a series of safety studies to further assess the risk of UCAs. Then in October 2011, the FDA leadership further downgraded the warnings after hearing the results of the post-marketing data, which revealed continued safety and improved efficacy. The present review focuses on the use of UCAs in today’s clinical practice, including the approved indications, a variety of off-label uses, and the most recent data, which affirms the safety and efficacy of UCAs.

References

  1. Gramiak R, Shah PM 1968 Echocardiography of the aortic root. Investigative Radiology 3 356–366. (doi:10.1097/00004424-196809000-00011)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bove AA, Ziskin MC, Mulchin WL 1969 Ultrasonic detection of in-vivo cavitation and pressure effects of high-speed injections through catheters. Investigative Radiology 4 236–240. (doi:10.1097/00004424-196907000-00005)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kremkau FW, Gramiak R, Carstensen EL, Shah PM, Kramer DH 1970 Ultrasonic detection of cavitation at catheter tips. American Journal of Roentgenology, Radium Therapy, and Nuclear Medicine 110 177–183. (doi:10.2214/ajr.110.1.177)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Meltzer RS, Tickner EG, Popp RL 1980 Why do the lungs clear ultrasonic contrast? Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology 6 263–269. (doi:10.1016/0301-5629(80)90022-8)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Reale A, Pizzuto F, Gioffre PA, Nigri A, Romeo F, Martuscelli E, Mangieri E, Scibilia G 1980 Contrast echocardiography: transmission of echoes to the left heart across the pulmonary vascular bed. European Heart Journal 1 101–106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. DeMaria AN, Bommer W, Kwan OL, Riggs K, Smith M, Waters J 1984 In vivo correlation of thermodilution cardiac output and videodensitometric indicator-dilution curves obtained from contrast two-dimensional echocardiograms. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 3 999–1004. (doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(84)80359-9)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ong K, Maurer G, Feinstein S, Zwehl W, Meerbaum S, Corday E 1984 Computer methods for myocardial contrast two-dimensional echocardiography. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 3 1212–1218. (doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(84)80179-5)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Armstrong WF, Mueller TM, Kinney EL, Tickner EG, Dillon JC, Feigenbaum H 1982 Assessment of myocardial perfusion abnormalities with contrast-enhanced two-dimensional echocardiography. Circulation 66 166–173. (doi:10.1161/01.CIR.66.1.166)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sakamaki T, Tei C, Meerbaum S, Shimoura K, Kondo S, Fishbein MC, Y-Rit J, Shah PM, Corday E 1984 Verification of myocardial contrast two-dimensional echocardiographic assessment of perfusion defects in ischemic myocardium. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 3 34–38. (doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(84)80427-1)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nanda NC 1997 History of echocardiographic contrast agents. Clinical Cardiology 20 7–11. (doi:10.1002/clc.4960201304)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Feinstein SB, Shah PM, Bing RJ, Meerbaum S, Corday E, Chang BL, Santillan G, Fujibayashi Y 1984 Microbubble dynamics visualized in the intact capillary circulation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 4 595–600. (doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(84)80107-2)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. van der Meer. Ultrasound Contrast Agents: Resonances of Coated Bubbles. University of Twente, PhD Thesis 2007. (available at: http://purl.utwente.nl/publications/57925).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Calliada F, Campani R, Bottinelli O, Bozzini A, Sommaruga MG 1998 Ultrasound contrast agents: basic principles. European Journal of Radiology 27 (Suppl 2) S157–S160. (doi:10.1016/S0720-048X(98)00057-6)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Porter TR, Abdelmoneim S, Belcik JT, McCulloch ML, Mulvagh SL, Olson JJ, Porcelli C, Tsutsui JM, Wei K 2014 Guidelines for the cardiac sonographer in the performance of contrast echocardiography: a focused update from the American Society of Echocardiography. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 27 797–810. (doi:10.1016/j.echo.2014.05.011)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Porter TR, Xie F 2015 Contrast echocardiography: latest developments and clinical utility. Current Cardiology Reports 17 569 (doi:10.1007/s11886-015-0569-9)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Optison [package insert], 2012. Available at http://www.optisonimaging.com/us/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/optison_pi.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Definity [package insert], 2011. Available at http://www.definityimaging.com/pdf/DEFINITY%20Prescribing%20Information%20515987-0413.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Herzog CA 2008 INcidence of adverse events associated with use of perflutren contrast agents for echocardiography. Journal of the American Medical Association 299 2023–2025. (doi:10.1001/jama.299.17.2023)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sonovue Product Information, 2014. Available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000303/WC500055380.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sonazoid [Package Insert], 2014. Available at http://www3.gehealthcare.co.kr/ko-kr/products/categories/contrast_media/sonazoid.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kazushi N, Luo W, Morimoto M, Fukuda H, Sato N & Tanaka K. Clinical usefulness of contrast-enhanced three-dimensional ultrasound imaging with sonazoid for hepatic tumor lesions. In Ultrasound Imaging, pp151–170. Ed M Tanabe. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech, 2011. ((doi:10.5772/15563))

    Google Scholar 

  22. Reilly JP, Tunick PA, Timmermans RJ, Stein B, Rosenzweig BP, Kronzon I 2000 Contrast echocardiography clarifies uninterpretable wall motion in intensive care unit patients. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 35 485–490. (doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00558-6)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kitzman DW, Goldman ME, Gillam LD, Cohen JL, Aurigemma GP, Gottdiener JS 2000 Efficacy and safety of the novel ultrasound contrast agent perflutren (definity) in patients with suboptimal baseline left ventricular echocardiographic images. American Journal of Cardiology 86 669–674. (doi:10.1016/S0002-9149(00)01050-X)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cohen JL, Cheirif J, Segar DS, Gillam LD, Gottdiener JS, Hausnerova E, Bruns DE 1998 Improved left ventricular endocardial border delineation and opacification with OPTISON (FS069), a new echocardiographic contrast agent. Results of a phase III Multicenter Trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 32 746–752. (doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(98)00311-8)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Vlassak I, Rubin DN, Odabashian JA, Garcia MJ, King LM, Lin SS, Drinko JK, Morehead AJ, Prior DL, Asher CR et al. 2002 Contrast and harmonic imaging improves accuracy and efficiency of novice readers for dobutamine stress echocardiography. Echocardiography 19 483–488. (doi:10.1046/j.1540-8175.2002.00483.x)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dolan MS, Riad K, El-Shafei A, Puri S, Tamirisa K, Bierig M, St Vrain J, McKinney L, Havens E, Habermehl K et al. 2001 Effect of intravenous contrast for left ventricular opacification and border definition on sensitivity and specificity of dobutamine stress echocardiography compared with coronary angiography in technically difficult patients. American Heart Journal 142 908–915. (doi:10.1067/mhj.2001.117608)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kurt M, Shaikh KA, Peterson L, Kurrelmeyer KM, Shah G, Nagueh SF, Fromm R, Quinones MA, Zoghbi WA 2009 Impact of contrast echocardiography on evaluation of ventricular function and clinical management in a large prospective cohort. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 53 802–810. (doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.01.005)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Waggoner AD, Ehler D, Adams D, Moos S, Rosenbloom J, Gresser C, Perez JE, Douglas PS 2001 Guidelines for the cardiac sonographer in the performance of contrast echocardiography: recommendations of the American Society of Echocardiography Council on Cardiac Sonography. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 14 417–420. (doi:10.1067/mje.2001.113817)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mulvagh SL, Rakowski H, Vannan MA, Abdelmoneim SS, Becher H, Bierig SM, Burns PN, Castello R, Coon PD, Hagen ME et al. 2008 American Society of Echocardiography Consensus Statement on the Clinical Applications of Ultrasonic Contrast Agents in Echocardiography. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 21 1179–1201. quiz 281 (doi:10.1016/j.echo.2008.09.009)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sidhu PS, Choi BI, Nielsen MB 2012 The EFSUMB Guidelines on the non-hepatic clinical applications of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): a new dawn for the escalating use of this ubiquitous technique. Ultraschall in der Medizin 33 5–7. (doi:10.1055/s-0031-1299141)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kotopoulis S, Dimcevski G, Gilja OH, Hoem D, Postema M 2013 Treatment of human pancreatic cancer using combined ultrasound, microbubbles, and gemcitabine: a clinical case study. Medical Physics 40 072902 (doi:10.1118/1.4808149)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Main ML, Goldman JH, Grayburn PA 2007 Thinking outside the "box"-the ultrasound contrast controversy. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 50 2434–2437. (doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.11.006)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Main ML 2009 Ultrasound contrast agent safety: from anecdote to evidence. JACC. Cardiovascular Imaging 2 1057–1059. (doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2009.05.008)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Grayburn PA 2008 Product safety compromises patient safety (an unjustified black box warning on ultrasound contrast agents by the Food and Drug Administration). American Journal of Cardiology 101 892–893. (doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.11.036)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Douglas PS, Weyman AE, Lindner JR, Wei K 2008 Contrast echocardiography: past, present, and..future? JACC. Cardiovascular Imaging 1 107–110. (doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2007.10.005)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Main ML, Ryan AC, Davis TE, Albano MP, Kusnetzky LL, Hibberd M 2008 Acute mortality in hospitalized patients undergoing echocardiography with and without an ultrasound contrast agent (multicenter registry results in 4,300,966 consecutive patients). American Journal of Cardiology 102 1742–1746. (doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.08.019)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wei K, Mulvagh SL, Carson L, Davidoff R, Gabriel R, Grimm RA, Wilson S, Fane L, Herzog CA, Zoghbi WA et al. 2008 The safety of deFinity and Optison for ultrasound image enhancement: a retrospective analysis of 78,383 administered contrast doses. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 21 1202–1206. (doi:10.1016/j.echo.2008.07.019)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. FDA Advisory Committee Briefing Document Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee June 24th 2008. (accessed 3/6/2015, available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/08/briefing/2008-4369b1-01.pdf).

  39. Sonovue: EPAR-Assessment Report-Variation. Available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Assessment_Report_-_Variation/human/000303/WC500170218.pdf.

  40. Wever-Pinzon O, Suma V, Ahuja A, Romero J, Sareen N, Henry SA, De Benedetti Zunino M, Chaudhry FF, Suryadevara RS, Sherrid MV et al. 2012 Safety of echocardiographic contrast in hospitalized patients with pulmonary hypertension: a multi-center study. European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging 13 857–862. (doi:10.1093/ehjci/jes057)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Goldberg YH, Ginelli P, Siegel R, Ostfeld RJ, Schaefer M, Spevack DM 2012 Administration of perflutren contrast agents during transthoracic echocardiography is not associated with a significant increase in acute mortality risk. Cardiology 122 119–125. (doi:10.1159/000338731)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Platts DG, Luis SA, Roper D, Burstow D, Call T, Forshaw A, Pascoe R 2013 The safety profile of perflutren microsphere contrast echocardiography during rest and stress imaging: results from an Australian multicentre cohort. Heart, Lung and Circulation 22 996–1002. (doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2013.05.637)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Anantharam B, Janardhanan R, Hayat S, Senior R 2013 Ischaemic burden determined by myocardial contrast echocardiography predicts mortality in patients with new-onset shortness of breath, suspected heart failure and no previous coronary artery disease. International Journal of Cardiology 168 1670–1671. (doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.03.094)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Porter TR, Smith LM, Wu J, Thomas D, Haas JT, Mathers DH, Williams E, Olson J, Nalty K, Hess R et al. 2013 Patient outcome following 2 different stress imaging approaches: a prospective randomized comparison. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 61 2446–2455. (doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.04.019)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Senior R, Moreo A, Gaibazzi N, Agati L, Tiemann K, Shivalkar B, von Bardeleben S, Galiuto L, Lardoux H, Trocino G et al. 2013 Comparison of sulfur hexafluoride microbubble (SonoVue)-enhanced myocardial contrast echocardiography with gated single-photon emission computed tomography for detection of significant coronary artery disease: a large European multicenter study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 62 1353–1361. (doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.04.082)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kalra A, Shroff GR, Erlien D, Gilbertson DT, Herzog CA 2014 Perflutren-based echocardiographic contrast in patients with right-to-left intracardiac shunts. JACC. Cardiovascular Imaging 7 206–207. (doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2013.11.003)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Main ML, Hibberd MG, Ryan A, Lowe TJ, Miller P, Bhat G 2014 Acute mortality in critically ill patients undergoing echocardiography with or without an ultrasound contrast agent. JACC. Cardiovascular Imaging 7 40–48. (doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2013.08.012)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wei K, Main ML, Lang RM, Klein A, Angeli S, Panetta C, Mikati I, Lee LV, Bernstein JA, Ahmad M 2012 The effect of Definity on systemic and pulmonary hemodynamics in patients. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 25 584–588. (doi:10.1016/j.echo.2012.01.019)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Weiss RJ, Ahmad M, Villanueva F, Schmitz S, Bhat G, Hibberd MG, Main ML, CaRES Investigators 2012 CaRES (Contrast Echocardiography Registry for Safety Surveillance): a prospective multicenter study to evaluate the safety of the ultrasound contrast agent DEFINITY in clinical practice. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 25 790–795. (doi:10.1016/j.echo.2012.04.002)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Exuzides A, Main ML, Colby C, Grayburn PA, Feinstein SB, Goldman JH 2010 A retrospective comparison of mortality in critically ill hospitalized patients undergoing echocardiography with and without an ultrasound contrast agent. JACC. Cardiovascular Imaging 3 578–585. (doi:10.1016/j.jcmg.2010.04.006)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Main ML, Grayburn PA, Lang RM, Goldman JH, Gibson CM, Sherwin P, DeMaria AN 2013 Effect of Optison on pulmonary artery systolic pressure and pulmonary vascular resistance. American Journal of Cardiology 112 1657–1661. (doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.07.026)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wei K, Shah S, Jaber WA, DeMaria A 2014 An observational study of the occurrence of serious adverse reactions among patients who receive optison in routine medical practice. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 27 1006–1010. (doi:10.1016/j.echo.2014.04.020)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Boolani H, Main M 2012 Update on contrast echocardiography: safety and utility. Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports 5 410–419. (doi:10.1007/s12410-012-9162-4)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Shah BN, Chahal NS, Bhattacharyya S, Li W, Roussin I, Khattar RS, Senior R 2014 The feasibility and clinical utility of myocardial contrast echocardiography in clinical practice: results from the incorporation of myocardial perfusion assessment into clinical testing with stress echocardiography study. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography 27 520–530. (doi:10.1016/j.echo.2014.01.028)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

S Feinstein received research funding from the National Institute of Health, grant number 1R44HL095238.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cardiology, Rush University Medical Center, 1653 West Congress Parkway, Chicago, Illinois, 60612, USA

    Andrew W. Appis MD, Melissa J. Tracy MD FACC & Steven B. Feinstein MD FACC FESC

Authors
  1. Andrew W. Appis MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melissa J. Tracy MD FACC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven B. Feinstein MD FACC FESC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew W. Appis MD.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the articles Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the articles Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Appis, A.W., Tracy, M.J. & Feinstein, S.B. Update on the safety and efficacy of commercial ultrasound contrast agents in cardiac applications. Echo Res Pract 2, R55–R62 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1530/ERP-15-0018

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1530/ERP-15-0018

Key Words

Echo Research & Practice

ISSN: 2055-0464

Contact us