• 1. Quaia E. Classification and safety of microbubble-based contrast agents In: Quaia E, ed. Contrast media in ultrasonography. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 2005;314.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2. Tang J, Yang JC, Li Y, et al. Peripheral zone hypoechoic lesions of the prostate: evaluation with contras-enhanced gray scale transrectal ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 2007;26:16711679.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3. Hong S, Park S, Lee D, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for evaluation of blood perfusion in normal canine eyes. Vet Ophthalmol 2019;22:3138.

  • 4. Ohlerth S, O'Brien RT. Contrast ultrasound: general principles and veterinary clinical applications. Vet J 2007;174:501512.

  • 5. Claudon M, Cosgrove D, Albrecht T, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): update 2008. Ultraschall Med 2008;29:2844.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6. Piscaglia F, Nolsøe C, Dietrich CA, et al. The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical practice of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall Med 2012;33:3359.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7. Chung YE, Kim KW. Contrast-enhanced US in the abdomen. J Korean Soc Ultrasound Med 2012;31:203212.

  • 8. Correas J-M, Bridal L, Lesavre A, et al. Ultrasound contrast agents: properties, principles of action, tolerance, and artifacts. Eur Radiol 2001;11:13161328.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9. Tchacarski V, Krasteva R. Basic principles and practice in sonography. Principles of Doppler. Contrast agent. In: Tchacarski V, ed. Atlas of diagnostic ultrasound. Sofia, Bulgaria: Amazon Digital Services Inc, 2015;81107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10. Chen W-S, Matula TJ, Brayman AA, et al. A comparison of the fragmentation thresholds and inertial cavitation doses of different ultrasound contrast agents. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;113:643651.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11. Guo H, Liu L, Zheng W, et al. Comparison of the imaging effects of SonoVue and Sonazoid at high frequency in rabbit-liver ultrasonography. Chin J Ultrason 2011;20:344347.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12. 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;43:211217.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13. Watson PJ. The exocrine pancreas. In: Nelson RW, Couto CG, eds. Small animal internal medicine. 5th ed. St Louis: Elsevier, 2014;598628.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14. Styliński R, Misiuna P, Paździor M, et al. Comparison of the usefulness of ultrasonography and computed tomography in diagnosis of acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Wiad Lek 1997;50:8688.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15. Nakamura K, Lim S-Y, Ochiai K, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonographic findings in three dogs with pancreatic insulinoma. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2015;56:5562.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16. Vanderperren K, Haers H, Van der Vekens E, et al. Description of the use of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in four dogs with pancreatic tumours. J Small Anim Pract 2014;55:164169.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17. Shanaman MM, Schwarz T, Gal A, et al. Comparison between survey radiography, B-mode ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced multi-detector computed tomography findings in dogs with acute abdominal signs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2013;54:591604.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18. Lim SY, Nakamura K, Morishita K, et al. Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasonographic assessment of naturally occurring pancreatitis in dogs. J Vet Intern Med 2015;29:7178.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19. Lim SY, Nakamura K, Morishita K, et al. Qualitative and quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of the pancreas using bolus injection and continuous infusion methods in normal dogs. J Vet Med Sci 2013;75:16011607.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20. Rademacher N, Schur D, Gaschen F, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of the pancreas in healthy dogs and in dogs with acute pancreatitis. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2016;57:5864.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21. Jiang Y, Lv K, Liang P, et al. A phase 3 multicentre, randomised, comparative study of the efficacy and safety of Sonazoid and SonoVue in subjects with focal liver lesions undergoing pre- and post-contrast ultrasound imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2017;43:3435.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22. Droste DW, Kriete J-U, Stypmann J, et al. Contrast transcranial Doppler ultrasound in the detection of right-to-left shunts: comparison of different procedures and different contrast agents. Stroke 1999;30:18271832.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23. Terslev L, Torp-Pedersen S, Bang N, et al. Doppler ultra-sound findings in healthy wrists and finger joints before and after use of two different contrast agents. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:824827.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24. Zhai H, Liang P, Yu J, et al. Comparison of Sonazoid and Sonovue in the diagnosis of focal liver lesions: a preliminary study. J Ultrasound Med 2019;38:24172425.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25. Ripollés T, Martínez MJ, López E, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the staging of acute pancreatitis. Eur Radiol 2010;20:25182523.

  • 26. Penninck DG, d'Anjou M-A. Pancreas. In: Penninck D, d'Anjou M-A, eds. Atlas of small animal ultrasonography. 2nd ed. Ames, Iowa: John Wiley & Sons, 2015;309331.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27. D'Onofrio M, Zamboni G, Malago R, et al. Resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: is the enhancement pattern at contrast-enhanced ultrasonography a pre-operative prognostic factor? Ultrasound Med Biol 2009;35:19291937.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28. D'Onofrio M, Zamboni G, Malago R, et al. Pancreatic pathology. In: Quaia E, ed. Contrast media in ultrasonography. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 2005;335348.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29. Correas JM, Tranquart F, Claudon M. Guidelines for contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)—update 2008 [in French]. J Radiol 2009;90:123138.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30. Dietrich CF, Averkiou M, Nielsen MB, et al. How to perform contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Ultrasound Int Open 2018;4:E2E15.

Advertisement

Comparison of sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles and perfluorobutane for performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of the pancreas in dogs

Seungjo Park DVM, MS1, Hyejin Je DVM1, Seolyn Jang DVM1, Bo-Kwon Choi DVM1, Eunji Lee DVM1, Suhyun Lee DVM1, and Jihye Choi DVM, PhD1
View More View Less
  • 1 From the College of Veterinary Medicine and BK21 Plus Project Team, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare qualitative features and quantitative parameters of 2 contrast agents (sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles [SHM; SonoVue] and perfluoro-butane [PFB; Sonazoid]) for performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) of the pancreas in dogs.

ANIMALS

8 healthy Beagles.

PROCEDURES

In a crossover study design, CEUS of the pancreas was performed twice in each dog, once with SHM and once with PFB, in random order with at least 3 days between examinations. The recorded cine images were qualitatively assessed for homogeneity of pancreatic enhancement and conspicuity of the pancreatic signal relative to the background. For the quantitative assessment, circular regions of interest were placed over the pancreatic body, and a time-intensity curve was obtained. For each region of interest, CEUS parameters including peak intensity (PI), time to peak pancreatic enhancement, area under the curve (AUC), and wash-in rate were obtained.

RESULTS

The homogeneity of the pancreatic parenchyma was not significantly different between contrast agents. The signal conspicuity relative to background noise was significantly higher with PFB than with SHM. Mean values of PI, wash-in rate, and AUC were significantly higher with PFB than with SHM. Time to peak enhancement was not significantly different between contrast agents.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Pancreatic CEUS with SHM and PFB produced similar homogeneity scores, but only PFB provided excellent signal conspicuity. Perfluorobutane produced higher values of PI, wash-in rate, and AUC. Findings indicated that PFB can provide homogeneous and strong enhancement of the pancreas during CEUS in healthy dogs and that pancreatic CEUS parameter values differ with the contrast agent used.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare qualitative features and quantitative parameters of 2 contrast agents (sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles [SHM; SonoVue] and perfluoro-butane [PFB; Sonazoid]) for performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) of the pancreas in dogs.

ANIMALS

8 healthy Beagles.

PROCEDURES

In a crossover study design, CEUS of the pancreas was performed twice in each dog, once with SHM and once with PFB, in random order with at least 3 days between examinations. The recorded cine images were qualitatively assessed for homogeneity of pancreatic enhancement and conspicuity of the pancreatic signal relative to the background. For the quantitative assessment, circular regions of interest were placed over the pancreatic body, and a time-intensity curve was obtained. For each region of interest, CEUS parameters including peak intensity (PI), time to peak pancreatic enhancement, area under the curve (AUC), and wash-in rate were obtained.

RESULTS

The homogeneity of the pancreatic parenchyma was not significantly different between contrast agents. The signal conspicuity relative to background noise was significantly higher with PFB than with SHM. Mean values of PI, wash-in rate, and AUC were significantly higher with PFB than with SHM. Time to peak enhancement was not significantly different between contrast agents.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Pancreatic CEUS with SHM and PFB produced similar homogeneity scores, but only PFB provided excellent signal conspicuity. Perfluorobutane produced higher values of PI, wash-in rate, and AUC. Findings indicated that PFB can provide homogeneous and strong enhancement of the pancreas during CEUS in healthy dogs and that pancreatic CEUS parameter values differ with the contrast agent used.

Contributor Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Jihye Choi (imsono@chonnam.ac.kr).