CLINICAL RESEARCH: CARDIAC IMAGING
Safety and Efficacy of Commercially Available Ultrasound Contrast Agents for Rest and Stress EchocardiographyA Multicenter Experience
Melda S. Dolan, MD*,*,
Simil S. Gala, MD*,
Saritha Dodla, MD ,
Sahar S. Abdelmoneim, MD ,
Feng Xie, MD,
David Cloutier, MS,
Michelle Bierig, MPH, RDCS, RDMS*,
Sharon L. Mulvagh, MD, FACC, FRCP,
Thomas R. Porter, MD, FACC, FASE and
Arthur J. Labovitz, MD, FACC, FACP, FCCP, FASE*
* Division of Cardiology, Saint Louis University Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri
Section of Cardiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska
Division of Cardiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
Manuscript received May 16, 2008;
revised manuscript received August 14, 2008,
accepted August 25, 2008.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Melda S. Dolan, Division of Cardiology, Saint Louis University, 3635 Vista Avenue, 14th Floor, St. Louis, Missouri 63110-0250 (Email: melda{at}tetranet.net).
Objectives: The authors sought to define the risks versus benefits of ultrasound contrast agents in patients undergoing stress echocardiography.
Background: The Food and Drug Administration recently placed a "black box" warning on the ultrasound contrast agents Definity (Bristol-Myers Squibb Medical Imaging, Billerica, Massachusetts) and Optison (GE Healthcare, Princeton, New Jersey) after their use was temporally related to 4 deaths. The safety of contrast has not been systematically evaluated.
Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 42,408 patients at 3 different institutions who had baseline suboptimal images and/or underwent myocardial perfusion imaging and received contrast agents; 18,749 of these underwent stress echocardiography. The outcomes (death and myocardial infarction [MI]) within 30 min, 24 h, and during long-term follow-up were recorded.
Results: No deaths or MIs were observed within 30 min; 1 death and 5 nonfatal MIs were observed within 24 h. This was not different from a matched cohort of 15,989 patients not receiving contrast. At 1 h and at 30 days after contrast administration, no significant differences in death rates or MIs were observed between patients who did and did not receive contrast during their stress echocardiogram. Endocardial border visualization in patients with suboptimal images resulted in comparable sensitivity (81% vs. 73%, p = NS) and diagnostic accuracy (82% vs. 77%, p = NS) for wall motion analysis compared with patients with optimal image quality. At long-term follow-up, abnormal wall motion and/or myocardial perfusion predicted adverse outcomes (20.6%) when compared with patients with normal studies (3.7%).
Conclusions: Despite recent warnings regarding echocardiographic contrast, our findings indicate it is a safe and useful diagnostic tool in assessment of patients suspected of having coronary artery disease.
Key Words: echocardiography • contrast • safety • stress
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | CAD = coronary artery disease | | DSE = dobutamine stress echocardiography | | EF = ejection fraction | | ESE = exercise stress electrocardiography | | FDA = Food and Drug Administration | | LV = left ventricular | | MI = myocardial infarction | | MP = myocardial perfusion | | MPI = myocardial perfusion imaging | | RT-MCE = real time-myocardial contrast echocardiography | | UCA = ultrasound contrast agent | | WM = wall motion |
|
Related Article
-
Inside This Issue of JACC
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2009 53: A26.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
A. G. Schneider, L. Hofmann, G. Wuerzner, N. Glatz, M. Maillard, J.-Y. Meuwly, P. Eggimann, M. Burnier, and B. Vogt
Renal perfusion evaluation with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant.,
February 1, 2012;
27(2):
674 - 681.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Sado and K. Greaves
Myocardial perfusion echocardiography: a novel use in the diagnosis of sepsis-induced left ventricular systolic impairment on the intensive care unit
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging,
January 1, 2011;
12(1):
81 - 84.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. R. Arnold, T. D. Karamitsos, T. J. Pegg, J. M. Francis, R. Olszewski, N. Searle, R. Senior, S. Neubauer, H. Becher, and J. B. Selvanayagam
Adenosine Stress Myocardial Contrast Echocardiography for the Detection of Coronary Artery Disease: A Comparison With Coronary Angiography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img.,
September 1, 2010;
3(9):
934 - 943.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. S. Villanueva
Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Using Ultrasound Contrast Agents: Now or Never?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img.,
September 1, 2010;
3(9):
944 - 946.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Exuzides, M. L. Main, C. Colby, P. A. Grayburn, S. B. Feinstein, and J. H. Goldman
A Retrospective Comparison of Mortality in Critically Ill Hospitalized Patients Undergoing Echocardiography With and Without an Ultrasound Contrast Agent
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img.,
June 1, 2010;
3(6):
578 - 585.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. S. Abdelmoneim, M. Bernier, C. G. Scott, A. Dhoble, S. A. C. Ness, M. E. Hagen, S. Moir, R. B. McCully, P. A. Pellikka, and S. L. Mulvagh
Safety of Contrast Agent Use During Stress Echocardiography in Patients With Elevated Right Ventricular Systolic Pressure: A Cohort Study
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging,
May 1, 2010;
3(3):
240 - 248.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. L. Geleijnse, B. J. Krenning, A. Nemes, B. M. van Dalen, O. I. I. Soliman, F. J. ten Cate, A. F. L. Schinkel, E. Boersma, and M. L. Simoons
Incidence, Pathophysiology, and Treatment of Complications During Dobutamine-Atropine Stress Echocardiography
Circulation,
April 20, 2010;
121(15):
1756 - 1767.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. R. Porter and F. Xie
Myocardial Perfusion Imaging With Contrast Ultrasound
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img.,
February 1, 2010;
3(2):
176 - 187.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. S. Chahal and R. Senior
Clinical Applications of Left Ventricular Opacification
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img.,
February 1, 2010;
3(2):
188 - 196.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. H. Marwick and J. Narula
Contrast Echocardiography: Over-Achievement in Research, Under-Achievement in Practice?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img.,
February 1, 2010;
3(2):
224 - 225.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Forsberg, J.-B. Liu, M. Patel, L. Liu, L. Lin, C. Solis, T. B. Fox, and M. A. Wheatley
Preclinical Acute Toxicology Study of Surfactant-Stabilized Ultrasound Contrast Agents in Adult Rats
International Journal of Toxicology,
January 1, 2010;
29(1):
32 - 39.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. S. Abdelmoneim, M. Bernier, C. G. Scott, A. Dhoble, S. A. C. Ness, M. E. Hagen, S. Moir, R. B. McCully, P. A. Pellikka, and S. L. Mulvagh
Safety of Contrast Agent Use During Stress Echocardiography: A 4-Year Experience From a Single-Center Cohort Study of 26,774 Patients
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img.,
September 1, 2009;
2(9):
1048 - 1056.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. L. Main
Ultrasound Contrast Agent Safety: From Anecdote to Evidence
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. Img.,
September 1, 2009;
2(9):
1057 - 1059.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Kaul and K. Wei
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging,
August 1, 2009;
10(6):
713 - 715.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Ionescu
Bubble trouble: anaphylactic shock, threatened myocardial infarction, and transient renal failure after intravenous echo contrast for left ventricular cavity opacification preceding dobutamine stress echo
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging,
July 1, 2009;
10(5):
707 - 710.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. N. DeMaria, O. Ben-Yehuda, J. J. Bax, G. K. Feld, B. H. Greenberg, W. Y.W. Lew, J. A.C. Lima, A. S. Maisel, S. M. Narayan, D. J. Sahn, et al.
Highlights of the Year in JACC 2008
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
January 27, 2009;
53(4):
373 - 398.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
