This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) View Related Cardiosource Journal Scan Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (14) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dolan, M. S. Articles by Labovitz, A. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dolan, M. S. Articles by Labovitz, A. J. Related Collections Related Article

CLINICAL RESEARCH: CARDIAC IMAGING

Safety and Efficacy of Commercially Available Ultrasound Contrast Agents for Rest and Stress Echocardiography

A 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).

	Abstract

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References

 
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

In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) to improve the diagnostic accuracy of echocardiography after reviewing safety and efficacy data. Before approval, studies showed no significant changes in systemic or pulmonary hemodynamics, myocardial contractility, or regional myocardial blood flow (5). Phase III studies subsequently confirmed the absence of safety concerns and led to the approval of UCAs (6,7). The approved indication was for left ventricular (LV) endocardial border delineation.

In October 2007, the FDA mandated that a "black box" warning be placed on Definity (perflutren lipid microsphere [Bristol-Myers Squibb Medical Imaging, Billerica, Massachusetts]) and Optison (perflutren protein type A microsphere [GE Healthcare, Princeton, New Jersey]) after 11 deaths (4 within 30 min of administration) were temporally related to but not clearly caused by contrast injection. The warning stated that the use of these agents was contraindicated in patients with an unstable cardiopulmonary status, including those with acute coronary syndromes, acute myocardial infarction (MI), and worsening or unstable heart failure, as well as in patients with cardiac shunts, ventricular arrhythmias and prolonged QT interval corrected for heart rate, severe emphysema, and pulmonary emboli (8). As a result of this warning, many institutions stopped using these agents. Despite the decision by the FDA, the overall risk versus benefit profile of UCAs has not been clearly defined. A recent single-center experience described the background mortality of patients undergoing transthoracic contrast echocardiography and demonstrated that it is not significantly higher than that in patients undergoing noncontrast echocardiography during short-term follow-up (9). The FDA recently modified their original warning, but an examination of a multicenter experience regarding the safety of UCAs is needed. This study was designed to examine the short- and long-term safety profiles associated with the use of UCAs during stress echocardiography at 3 medical centers. The incremental value of UCA use in this setting was also assessed.

	Methods

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References

 
Patient characteristics.   We retrospectively analyzed 42,408 consecutive patients from 1999 to 2007 at 3 academic medical centers (Saint Louis University, University of Nebraska, and Mayo Clinic Rochester–Minnesota) who underwent echocardiographic evaluation with contrast. Figure 1 summarizes the categorical comparisons performed in these 42,408 patients. A total of 23,659 patients had resting contrast echocardiography, with short-term follow-ups at 30 min and 24 h after contrast use. These patients were then compared with a matched group of 5,900 consecutive patients who underwent echocardiographic examination without contrast (Table 1).

View larger version (20K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 1 Study Outline A total of 42,408 patients (23,659 rest echocardiograms [echo] and 18,749 stress echo) from 3 different institutions were retrospectively analyzed after receiving contrast during echocardiography. The occurrence of serious adverse outcomes (death and myocardial infarction) within 30 min, 24 h, and long-term follow-up (median 25 months) after intravenous contrast was recorded. DSE = dobutamine stress echocardiography; MPI = myocardial perfusion imaging.

In 4,011 patients who received UCA for suboptimal imaging during DSE, we evaluated whether wall motion analysis using enhanced LV opacification with contrast agents led to improvements in sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy by comparing results with those from 1,923 matched patients who had optimal images without UCAs during stress echocardiography. Quantitative angiography was used as the reference standard, using a >50% diameter stenosis in at least 1 major epicardial vessel as the definition of significant CAD.

Short-term follow-up consisted of examination of the patient within 30 min of contrast use and at 24 h. Long-term follow-up (2 to 92 months) was conducted in 6,075 patients. It was performed through review of the electronic medical record and data collection through telephone interviews. Nonfatal MI, as defined by a trend in cardiac specific enzymes according to European Heart/American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, and death due to any cause were considered end points (10). If more than 1 event was noted during follow-up, the event occurring first was considered the end point.

In the 6,075 patients who underwent DSE with long-term follow-up, the added benefits of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) were analyzed by recording the number of adverse outcomes in patients who had abnormal myocardial perfusion (MP) and/or wall motion (WM) compared with patients with normal studies (although contrast use for MPI is not currently FDA approved).

Stress echocardiography protocols.   Dobutamine and Exercise Stress Echocardiography Protocols
Dobutamine was infused intravenously at a starting dose of 5 µg/kg/min followed by increasing doses (10, 20, 30, and 40 µg/kg/min) up to a maximal dose of 50 µg/kg/min, in 3- to 5-min stages (11). Atropine (up to 2 mg) was injected in patients without symptoms or signs of ischemia to achieve the target heart rate, calculated as 220 minus age in years. The end points included achievement of target heart rate (85% of predicted maximal heart rate), maximal dobutamine/atropine doses, ST-segment elevation of 2 mm at an interval of 80 ms after the J point in non–Q-wave leads, sustained arrhythmias, severe chest pain, or intolerable adverse effects considered to be due to dobutamine or atropine (2,11). The tests were considered nondiagnostic if the patient failed to achieve the target heart rate without inducible ischemia.

For ESE, Bruce (90%) or modified Bruce (10%) protocols were used. Images were obtained at rest and immediately after peak stress. End points included achievement of target heart rate, horizontal or downsloping ST-segment depression of 1.4 mm at an interval of 80 ms after the J point in non–Q-wave leads, sustained arrhythmias, and symptom-limiting chest pain and/or shortness of breath.

Real Time Perfusion
Real time myocardial perfusion was performed using High Definition Imaging 5000 (Philips, Andover, Massachusetts), SONOS 5500 (Philips), iE 33 (Philips), Sequoia 512 (Siemens, Malvern, Pennsylvania), and Vivid 7 (GE Healthcare). All scanners were equipped with low-mechanical index real time pulse sequence schemes. During continuous infusions of microbubbles, intermittent high mechanical index impulses (4 to 40 frames) were administered to deplete capillary microbubbles and allow for the visual assessment of myocardial contrast replenishment (12). The equipment was adjusted to achieve a maximal nonlinear signal from contrast. Mechanical indexes were set to <0.3 and the frame rate to between 20 and 25 Hz. Time gain compensation and 2-dimensional gain settings were adjusted to suppress nonlinear signals from the myocardium before contrast injection and remained unchanged throughout the study.

Contrast-enhanced images from the apical window (2- to 4-chamber) were obtained and digitalized at rest, low dose dobutamine (if necessary), and maximal stress (85% age-predicted maximum heart rate), or a defined test end point. Each contrast bolus injection was followed by a slow 3- to 5-ml saline flush. After bolus injections, a minimum of 15 s of image acquisition was performed after appearance of peak myocardial opacification until the disappearance of contrast from the myocardium. For continuous infusions, ultrasound contrast was infused at a rate of 4 to 8 ml/min until perfusion images were obtained.

Echocardiographic analysis.   Baseline ejection fraction (EF) was visually estimated and/or calculated by single or biplane method of discs using contrast-enhanced 2-dimensional images. Contrast-enhanced WM abnormalities and, if done, MP assessments, were interpreted using a 17-segment model according to the joint recommendations of the American Society of Echocardiography (13). Segmental MP and WM in each of the 3 coronary artery territories were analyzed at rest and during peak stress and classified as normal, fixed, or inducible, as previously described (8,14,15). In this study, patients with either inducible or fixed WM abnormalities or perfusion defects were considered abnormal.

Statistical analysis.   Resting echoes with contrast in the nondiagnostic group versus the noncontrast group with good quality images were compared and differences in characteristics were assessed by unpaired t test. Likewise, groups of patients undergoing DSE with contrast versus without contrast were compared for differences in characteristics and hemodynamic responses. The differences in these variables were assessed by unpaired t test. For continuous variables such as heart rate, Student t tests were used for univariate comparison between contrast and noncontrast DSE. Continuous variables were expressed as means and standard deviations. Categoric variables were expressed as proportions. Calculations of sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of DSE for detection of coronary artery disease were performed with reference to angiograms as a gold standard.

Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate the distribution of time to death or nonfatal MI. The concordance of WM and MP analyses during stress real time-myocardial contrast echocardiography (RT-MCE) was calculated as percent agreement and kappa statistics. Differences between time-to-event curves were compared with log-rank testing. Clinical variables considered for univariate and multivariate predictors analyses were age older than 70 years, diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, cigarette smoking, previous MI, earlier history of coronary artery bypass graft, and percutaneous coronary intervention. Analyzed echocardiographic parameters included EF <50% and WM and MP responses. Multivariate predictors of events were determined by Cox proportional hazards model. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant. Interobserver variability was defined as the absolute difference between 2 blinded observations divided by the mean and expressed as a percentage.

	Results

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References

 
Short-term follow-up.   Resting Echocardiography
There were no events within 30 min among 23,659 patients who received contrast for suboptimal resting studies and/or MPI. Three nonfatal MIs and 1 death occurred within 24 h. In the matched group of 5,900 consecutive patients with optimal resting studies and no contrast use, no events occurred within 30 min, but 7 nonfatal MIs and 1 death occurred within 24 h (p = NS compared with event rates in groups receiving contrast).

Stress Echocardiography
Among 18,749 patients who underwent stress echocardiograms, no deaths or MIs were observed within 30 min; 1 death and 5 nonfatal MIs were observed within 24 h. Among the 5 nonfatal MIs, 3 occurred after use of Definity and 2 after use of Optison. In the first case, a DSE with RT-MCE demonstrated inducible inferolateral ischemia. Catheterization demonstrated >50% stenosis in the left circumflex artery and right posterior descending artery, which were revascularized. Sixteen hours after intervention, the patient had significantly elevated cardiac enzymes. In the second case, a patient exhibited inducible ischemia during a DSE with RT-MCE, but proceeded to cadaveric renal transplant surgery the same day. Post-operative cardiac enzymes demonstrated a non–Q-wave infarction. In the third case, the patient had inducible ischemia during a DSE with RT-MCE and elevated cardiac enzymes 7 h after DSE. The patient subsequently underwent percutaneous coronary intervention of a 90% stenosis in an obtuse marginal vessel. In the fourth case, a patient had ventricular tachycardia 9 min into recovery after DSE, had inducible septal ischemia, and underwent percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty to a 100% occluded distal left anterior descending. In the fifth case, the patient had no ischemia or electrocardiogram changes during stress testing, but had persistent chest pain and an elevated troponin level. Coronary angiography demonstrated a 60% obtuse marginal and 50% posterior descending artery lesion.

One death within 24 h was noted in the stress echocardiography subgroup. This patient was transferred from a local hospital due to dyspnea and required continuous vasopressors for hypotension. He developed frequent runs of ventricular tachycardia requiring intravenous antiarrhythmic therapy. The patient eventually developed disseminated intravascular coagulation. In an attempt to determine whether there was myocardial viability, the patient underwent DSE with RT-MCE using intravenous Optison on hospital day 11. The procedure was performed without complication, but within the next 24 h, the patient developed recurring ventricular tachycardia and died 22 h after contrast administration. In all of these cases, there was no reason to believe contrast use contributed to the events.

Thirty-day follow-up.   Stress Echocardiography
At 30 days, in a subgroup of 10,788 patients who received contrast for DSE or ESE, 37 (0.34%) patients died and 68 (0.63%) patients had an MI; this compared with a temporally matched cohort of 15,989 patients undergoing stress echocardiography and not receiving contrast agents, in which 62 (0.39%) patients died and 73 (0.46%) had an MI. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups with respect to nonfatal MI or death.

CAD detection with contrast-enhanced LV opacification in patients with suboptimal images.   In a subgroup of 4,011 patients who received UCA for suboptimal images, we evaluated whether WM analysis using enhanced LV opacification led to improvements in sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy by comparing these values with those from 1,923 patients who had optimal images during stress echocardiography and did not require UCAs. There were no differences between the 2 groups with respect to age, sex, history of MI, or prevalence of resting WM abnormalities (Table 2). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to hemodynamics and heart rate responses to dobutamine (Table 3). Likewise, there were no statistically significant differences between the group that received contrast and the noncontrast group with respect to the number of affected vessels, stenosis severity, or stenosis distribution (Table 4).

MPI Results
DSE was interpreted as normal in 4,251 (69.9%) and abnormal in 1,824 (30%) patients. Both WM and MP were abnormal in 1,458 (24%) patients. All patients with abnormal WM also had abnormal MP. There were 668 patients (11%) with normal WM but abnormal MP. Of the 510 events that occurred during long-term follow-up, 133 (3.7%) events occurred in patients with normal WM and MP responses during RT-MCE, 291 (16%) events occurred in patients with abnormal WM and MP, and 86 (13%) events were noted in patients with normal WM but abnormal MP.

Univariate and multivariate predictors of follow-up events are depicted in Table 6. By univariate analysis, age >70 years, previous coronary artery bypass grafting, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, previous MI, resting EF <50%, abnormal WM, and abnormal MP were predictors. By multivariate analysis, the only independent predictors were EF <50% (odds ratio [OR]: 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0 to 1.8), previous MI (OR: 0.6; 95% CI: 0.4 to 0.9), and abnormal MP (OR: 2.4; 95% CI: 1.0 to 5.9). After adjustment for MP, the analysis of WM no longer had predictive value (Table 6).

Interobserver agreement.   The average interobserver agreement for the 3 institutions was 80% for MP ( = 0.63) and 88% for WM ( = 0.64) analysis.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References

 
The recent FDA mandated "black box" warning reported a total of 11 deaths related to contrast administration: 10 following Definity and 1 following Optison (8). Although 4 occurred during or within 30 min of Definity use, mitigating factors could have explained the deaths.

Before the black box warning, there were multiple studies that demonstrated the safety of these contrast agents (16,17). Recently presented data suggested that contrast use in echocardiography is safe, and the FDA modified the professional labeling for Optison and Definity contrast agents originally announced in November 2007. The warning currently states that it is contraindicated to administer contrast to patients with RL, bidirectional, or transient RL cardiac shunts and to patients with hypersensitivity to perflutren. This study was designed to evaluate the safety profile and incremental benefit of UCA use during stress echocardiography in a multicenter setting. As has been the case, serious adverse events (death or nonfatal MI) within 24 h of contrast use could be easily explained by the patient's underlying condition at the time of the study or to induced ischemia during stress echocardiography. This was confirmed by the similar incidence of adverse events in the patients who did not receive contrast during their stress echocardiography.

It is important to note the significant incremental value of contrast that was observed at the 3 participating centers. Enhanced LV opacification (an approved indication) in patients with suboptimal windows resulted in a sensitivity and specificity in detecting coronary artery disease that were equivalent to those in whom image quality was optimal. The ability of stress echocardiography to detect coronary artery disease is clearly related to the ability to visualize all myocardial segments in each coronary artery territory (18). Suboptimal windows when contrast is not used usually results in the study being cancelled and an alternative noninvasive or invasive study being performed. These alternative tests often involve the use of ionizing radiation, with the patient incurring additional risks and costs. In this study, we demonstrated that ultrasound contrast in patients with suboptimal windows has the ability to improve test accuracy to the level seen only in patients with optimal endocardial border delineation.

Myocardial perfusion imaging (not yet approved by the FDA) added significant incremental value to DSE, identifying patients at risk for death or nonfatal MI. Although the FDA has not approved the use of ultrasound contrast to assess MP, most ultrasound scanners now offer real time perfusion pulse sequence schemes that allow one to examine myocardial contrast enhancement during stress echocardiography. This confirms single center findings regarding prognostic value (19), and emphasizes the potential for perfusion imaging in this setting. MPI has become especially useful not only in detecting stress-induced ischemia, but also in detecting acute coronary syndromes in the emergency department (20) and predicting patient outcomes after MI (21).

Study limitations.   The number of patients analyzed in this study is a great strength. We have included both short- and long-term follow-up as part of our safety analysis. Furthermore, we have provided evidence of the obvious advantages of contrast agent use. We do recognize, however, that this is a retrospective analysis with intrinsic limitations. In addition, the matched cohorts of patients who did not receive contrast were not the same size as the group receiving contrast.

In the current study, patients with suboptimal images in whom contrast was used were compared with patients with good echocardiographic windows in whom no contrast was used. However, technically difficult patients were not studied with and without contrast. This approach was selected so that we could compare 2 groups in which 17 segments were adequately visualized, either with or without contrast.

	Conclusions

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References

 
This study examined, in a large multicenter experience, the safety and incremental value of contrast use in the clinical practice of stress echocardiography. The risks of both short-term and long-term events, defined as nonfatal MI and death, after contrast administration are very low and are no different than in patients not receiving contrast during stress echocardiography. Contrast use in patients with suboptimal images improves feasibility and accuracy of stress echocardiography testing. Failure to use contrast agents in patients with suboptimal images may result in a misdiagnosis and/or additional alternative imaging techniques with greater inherent risks. MPI was shown in this study to provide significant incremental value to DSE in predicting patient outcomes. Based on this study and recent comparisons of resting ultrasound contrast use in hospitalized patients (9), which results in a combined experience of more than 60,000 patients, there is no evidence to suggest a causal relationship between the use of commercially available contrast use and serious adverse events. The findings in this study provide physicians with the confidence to use contrast agents during stress testing when clinically indicated.

	Footnotes

 
Dr. Labovitz was recently appointed as a blinded reader for Bristol-Myers Squibb.

	References

Top Abstract Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References

 
1. Mulvagh SL, DeMaria AN, Feinstein SB, et al. Contrast echocardiography: current and future applications J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2000;13:331-342.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

2. Geleijnse ML, Fioretti PM, Roelandt JR. Methodology, feasibility, safety and diagnostic accuracy of dobutamine stress echocardiography J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:595-606.[Abstract]

3. Weissman NJ, Cohen MC, Hack TC, Gillam LD, Cohen JL, Kitzman DW. Infusion versus bolus contrast echocardiography: a multicenter, open-label, crossover trial Am Heart J 2000;139:399-404.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

4. Daniel G, Chawla MK, Sawad SG, Gradus-Pizlo I, Feigenbaum H, Segar DS. Echocardiographic imaging of technically difficult patients in the intensive care unit: use of optison in combination with fundamental and harmonic imaging J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2001;14:917-920.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

5. Skyba DM, Camarano G, Goodman NC, Price RJ, Skalak TC, Kaul S. Hemodynamic characteristics, myocardial kinetics and microvascular rheology of FS-069, 2nd gen. echocardiographic contrast agent capable of producing myocardial opacification from a venous injection J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;28:1292-1300.[Abstract]

6. Cohen JL, Cherif J, Segar DS, et al. Improved left ventricular endocardial border delineation and opacification with OPTISON, a new echocardiographic contrast agent. Results of a phase III Multicenter Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32:746-752.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

7. Kitzman DW, Goldman ME, Gillam LD, Cohen JL, Aurigemma GP, Gottdiener JS. Efficacy and safety of novel ultrasound contrast agent perflutren (Definity) in patients with suboptimal baseline left ventricular echocardiographic images Am J Cardiol 2000;86:669-674.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

8. U.S. FDA prescribing information for Definity approved October 10, 2007 http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2007/021064s007lbl.pdf 2000Accessed November 15, 2007.

9. Kusnetzky LL, Khalid A, Khumri TM, Moe TG, Jones PG, Main ML. Acute mortality in hospitalized patients undergoing echocardiography with and without an ultrasound contrast agent J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:1704-1706.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

10. Fox KA, Birkhead J, Wilcox R, Knight C, Barth J, British Cardiac Society Working Group British Cardiac Society Working Group on the definition of myocardial infarction Heart 2004;90:603-609.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

11. Armstrong WF, Pellikka PA, Ryan T, Crouse L, Zoghbi WA. Stress echocardiography: recommendations for performance and interpretation of stress echocardiography. Stress Echocardiography Task Force of the Nomenclature and Standards Committee of the American Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1998;11:97-104.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

12. Xie F, Hankins J, Mahrous HA, Porter T. Detection of coronary artery disease with a continuous infusion of Definity ultrasound contrast during adenosine stress real time perfusion echocardiography Echocardiography 2007;24:1044-1050.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

13. Cerqueira MD, Weissman NJ, Dilsizian V, et al. Standardized myocardial segmentation and nomenclature for tomographic imaging of the heart: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Cardiac Imaging Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology of the American Heart Association Circulation 2002;105:539-542.[Free Full Text]

14. Elhendy A, Porter T. Assessment of myocardial perfusion with real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography: methodology and clinical applications J Nucl Cardiol 2005;12:582-590.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

15. Wei K, Jayaweera AR, Firoozan S, Linka A, Skyba DM, Kaul S. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with ultrasound-induced destruction of microbubbles administered as a constant venous infusion Circulation 1998;97:473-483.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

16. Varga A, Garcia MA, Picano E, International Stress Echo Complication Registry Safety of stress echocardiography (from International Stress Echo Registry) Am J Cardiol 2006;98:541-543.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

17. Picano E, Mathias Jr W, Pingitore A, Bigi R, Previtali M, Echo Dobutamine International Cooperative Study Group Safety and tolerability of dobutamine-atropine stress echocardiography: a prospective, multicentre study. Lancet Lancet 1994;344:1190-1192.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

18. Dolan MS, Riad K, El-Shafei A, Puri S, et al. 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 Am Heart J 2001;142:908-915.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

19. Tsutsui JM, Elhendy A, Anderson JR, Xie F, McGrain AC, Porter TR. Prognostic value of dobutamine stress myocardial contrast perfusion echocardiography Circulation 2005;112:1444-1450.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

20. Tong KL, Kaul S, Wang XQ, et al. Myocardial contrast echocardiography versus Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction score in patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain and a nondiagnostic electrocardiogram J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;46:920-927.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

21. Dwivedi G, Janardhanan R, Hayat SA, Swinburn JM, Senior R. Prognostic value of myocardial viability detected by myocardial contrast echocardiography early after acute myocardial infarction J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:327-334.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

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]

				B. FURLOW Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Radiol. Technol., July 1, 2009; 80(6): 547S - 561S. [Abstract] [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]

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) View Related Cardiosource Journal Scan Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (14) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dolan, M. S. Articles by Labovitz, A. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dolan, M. S. Articles by Labovitz, A. J. Related Collections Related Article