Advertisement
ProCite
RefWorks
Reference Manager
BibTeX
Zotero
EndNote
-
1. Chung YE, Kim KW. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography: advance and current status in abdominal imaging. Ultrasonography 2015;34:3–18.
-
2. Dietrich CF, Averkiou MA, Correas J-M, et al. An EFSUMB introduction into dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) for quantification of tumour perfusion. Ultraschall Med 2012;33:344–351.
-
3. Haers H, Saunders J. Review of clinical characteristics and applications of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2009;234:460–470.
-
4. Hyvelin, Jean-Marc, Tardy I, et al. Use of ultrasound contrast agent microbubbles in preclinical research: recommendations for small animal imaging. Invest Radiol 2013;48:570–583.
-
5. Quaia E. Assessment of tissue perfusion by contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Eur Radiol 2011;21:604–615.
-
6. Tang MX, Mulvana H, Gauthier T, et al. Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging: a review of sources of variability. Interface Focus 2011;1:520–539.
-
7. Kanemoto H, Ohno K, Nakashima K, et al. Characterization of canine focal liver lesions with contrast-enhanced ultrasound using a novel contrast agent—Sonazoid. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2009;50:188–194.
-
8. Yanagisawa K, Moriyasu F, Miyahara T, et al. Phagocytosis of ultrasound contrast agent microbubbles by Kupffer cells. Ultrasound Med Biol 2007;33:318–325.
-
9. Nihonmatsu H, Numata K, Fukuda H, et al. Low mechanical index contrast mode versus high mechanical index contrast mode: which is a more sensitive method for detecting Sonazoid microbubbles in the liver of normal subjects? J Med Ultrason (2001) 2016;43:211–217.
-
10. Sontum PC. Physicochemical characteristics of Sonazoid, a new contrast agent for ultrasound imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2008;34:824–833.
-
11. Tang MX, Eckersley RJ. Frequency and pressure dependent attenuation and scattering by microbubbles. Ultrasound Med Biol 2007;33:164–168.
-
12. Tsuruoka K, Yasuda T, Koitabashi K, et al. Evaluation of renal microcirculation by contrast-enhanced ultrasound with Sonazoid as a contrast agent. Int Heart J 2010;51:176–182.
-
13. Hong S, Park S, Lee D, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for evaluation of blood perfusion in normal canine eyes. Vet Ophthalmol 2019;31:31–38.
-
14. Kanemoto H, Ohno K, Nakashima K, et al. Vascular and Kupffer imaging of canine liver and spleen using the new contrast agent Sonazoid. J Vet Med Sci 2008;70:1265–1268.
-
15. Lim SY, Nakamura K, Morishita K, et al. Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasonographic assessment of naturally occurring pancreatitis in dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2015;29:71–78.
-
16. Matsuzawa F, Einama T, Abe H, et al. Accurate diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastasis using contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with Sonazoid. Mol Clin Oncol 2015;3:299–302.
-
17. Seiler GS, Brown JC, Reetz JA, et al. Safety of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in dogs and cats: 488 cases (2002–2011). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013;242:1255–1259.
-
18. Sidhu PS, Cantisani V, Dietrich CF, et al. The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations for the clinical practice of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in non-hepatic applications: update 2017 (long version). Ultraschall Med 2018;39:e2–e44.
-
19. Fang XX, Bing HF, Ai-Qing Z, et al. Quantitative analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the dog's acute renal failure. Biomed Res 2017;28:7137–7141.
-
20. Haers H, Daminet S, Smets P, et al. Use of quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasonography to detect diffuse renal changes in Beagles with iatrogenic hypercortisolism. Am J Vet Res 2013;74:70–77.
-
21. Lee G, Jeon S, Lee SK, et al. Quantitative evaluation of renal parenchymal perfusion using contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in renal ischemia-reperfusion injury in dogs. J Vet Sci 2017;18:507–514.
-
22. Stock E, Paepe D, Daminet S, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound examination for the assessment of renal perfusion in cats with chronic kidney disease. J Vet Intern Med 2018;32:260–266.
-
23. Okayama S, Hirai T, Yamashita N, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with Sonazoid for evaluation of renal microcirculation. J Med Ultrason (2001) 2008;35:183–189.
-
24. Dizeux A, Payen T, Barrois G, et al. Reproducibility of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in mice with controlled injection. Mol Imaging Biol 2016;18:651–658.
-
25. Eisenbrey JR, Daecher A, Kramer MR, et al. Effects of needle and catheter size on commercially available ultrasound contrast agents. J Ultrasound Med 2015;34:1961–1968.
-
26. Palmowski M, Lederle W, Gaetjens J, et al. Comparison of conventional time-intensity curves vs. maximum intensity over time for post-processing of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2010;75:e149–e153.
-
27. Dietrich CF, Averkiou M, Nielsen MB, et al. How to perform contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Ultrasound Int Open 2018;4:E2–E15.
-
28. Stock E, Vanderperren K, Haers H, et al. Quantitative differences between the first and second injection of contrast agent in contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of feline kidneys and spleen. Ultrasound Med Biol 2017;43:500–504.
-
29. Choi SY, Jeong WC, Lee YW, et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasonography of kidney in conscious and anesthetized Beagle dogs. J Vet Med Sci 2016;78:239–244.
-
30. Macrì F, Di Pietro S, Liotta L, et al. Effects of size and location of regions of interest examined by use of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography on renal perfusion variables of dogs. Am J Vet Res 2016;77:869–876.
-
31. Leinonen MR, Raekallio M, Vainio O, et al. The effect of the sample size and location on contrast ultrasound measurement of perfusion parameters. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2011;52:82–87.
-
32. Leinonen MR, Raekallio M, Vainio O, et al. Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasonographic analysis of perfusion in the kidneys, liver, pancreas, small intestine, and mesenteric lymph nodes in healthy cats. Am J Vet Res 2010;71:1305–1311.
-
33. Stock E, Duchateau L, Saunders J, et al. Repeatability of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of the kidneys in healthy cats. Ultrasound Med Biol 2018;44:426–433.
-
34. Stock E, Paepe D, Daminet S, et al. Influence of ageing on quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the kidneys in healthy cats. Vet Rec 2019;182:515.
-
35. Stock E, Vanderperren K, Bosmans T, et al. Evaluation of feline renal perfusion with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and scintigraphy. PLoS One 2016;11:e0164488.
-
36. Liu DJX, Hesta M, Stock E, et al. Renal perfusion parameters measured by contrast-enhanced ultrasound in healthy dogs demonstrate a wide range of variability in the long-term. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2018;201:201–209.
-
37. Wang L, Mohan C. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound: a promising method for renal microvascular perfusion evaluation. J Transl Int Med 2016;4:104–108.
-
38. Dong Y, Wang J, Cao P, et al. Quantitative evaluation of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis of chronic ischemic renal disease in a dog model. PLoS One 2013;8:e70337.
-
39. Feingold S, Gessner R, Guracar MI, et al. Quantitative volumetric perfusion mapping of the microvasculature using contrast ultrasound. Invest Radiol 2010;45:669–674.
-
40. Barrack T, Stride E. Microbubble destruction during intravenous administration: a preliminary study. Ultrasound Med Biol 2009;35:515–522.
-
41. Talu E, Powell RL, Longo ML, et al. Needle size and injection rate impact microbubble contrast agent population. Ultrasound Med Biol 2008;34:1182–1185.
-
42. Nols⊘e CP, Lorentzen T. International guidelines for contrast-enhanced ultrasonography: ultrasound imaging in the new millennium. Ultrasonography 2016;35:89–103.
-
43. Waller KR, O'Brien RT, Zagzebski JA, et al. Quantitative contrast ultrasound analysis of renal perfusion in normal dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2007;48:373–377.
-
44. Dietrich CF, Ignee A, Hocke M, et al. Pitfalls and artefacts using contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Z Gastroenterol 2011;49:350–356.
-
45. Amaral JG, Traubici J, BenDavid G, et al. Safety of power injector use in children as measured by incidence of extravasation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:580–583.
-
46. Indrajit IK, Sivasankar R, D'Souza J, et al. Pressure injectors for radiologists: a review and what is new. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2015;25:2–10.
Advertisement
Effect of catheter diameter and injection rate of flush solution on renal contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with perfluorobutane in dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To assess effects of catheter diameter and injection rate of flush solution (saline [0.9% NaCl] solution) on renal contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) with perfluorobutane in dogs.
ANIMALS
5 healthy Beagles.
PROCEDURES
CEUS of the kidneys was performed by IV injection of contrast medium (0.0125 mL/kg) followed by injection of 5 mL of saline solution at rates of 1, 3, and 5 mL/s through a 20-gauge or 24-gauge catheter; thus, CEUS was repeated 3 times for each catheter diameter. Time-intensity curves were created for regions of interest drawn in the renal cortex and medulla. Repeatability was determined by calculating the coefficient of variation (CV). Statistical analysis was used to assess whether perfusion variables or CV of the perfusion variables was associated with catheter diameter or injection rate.
RESULTS
Perfusion variables did not differ significantly between catheter diameters. Time to peak enhancement (TTP) in the renal cortex was affected by injection rate, and there were significantly lower values for TTP at higher injection rates. The CEUS variables with the lowest CVs among injection rates were TTP for the renal cortex; the CV for TTP of the renal cortex was the lowest at an injection rate of 5 mL/s.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Use of a 24-gauge catheter did not alter CEUS with perfluorobutane; therefore, such catheters could be used for CEUS of the kidneys of small dogs. Moreover, a rate of 5 mL/s is recommended for injection of flush solution to obtain greater accuracy for renal CEUS in Beagles.
Contributor Notes
Powered by PubFactory