ArticlePediatric radiology2015
Contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography: in vitro evaluation of a second-generation ultrasound contrast agent for in vivo optimization.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography (ceVUS) with the intravesical administration of the ultrasound contrast agent Optison™ for vesicoureteral reflux detection in children: a prospective clinical trial.Pediatric radiology · 2018Trial
- Multivariable Dependence of Acoustic Contrast of Fluorocarbon and Xenon Microbubbles under Flow.Ultrasound in medicine & biology · 2021Article
- Intraoperative contrast enhanced sonourethrography to characterize urethral stricture in a pediatric patient.Urology case reports · 2020Article
- Diagnosis of congenital and acquired focal lesions in the neck, abdomen, and pelvis with contrast-enhanced ultrasound: a pictorial essay.European journal of pediatrics · 2018Article
- Influence of contrast-enhanced ultrasound administration setups on microbubble enhancement: a focus on pediatric applications.Pediatric radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPediatric contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is primarily performed outside the United States where a track record for safety in intravenous and intravesical applications has been established. Contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography (ceVUS) has also been shown to have a much higher rate of vesicoureteral reflux detection compared to voiding cystourethrography. US contrast agents available in the United States differ from those abroad. Optison® (GE Healthcare, Princeton, NJ) is such an US contrast agent. While Optison® has similar characteristics to other second-generation agents, it has never been used for ceVUS. In vitro optimization of dose and imaging parameters as well as assessment of contrast visualization when delivered in conditions similar to ceVUS are necessary starting points prior to in vivo applications.
objectiveTo optimize the intravesical use of Optison® in vitro for ceVUS before its use in pediatric studies. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe experimental design simulated intravesical use. Using 9- and 12-MHz linear transducers, we scanned 20-mL syringes varying mechanical index, US contrast agent concentration (0.25%, 0.5%, 1.0%), solvent (saline, urine, radiographic contrast agent) and time out of refrigeration. We evaluated mechanical index settings and contrast duration, optimized the contrast dose, measured the effect of urine and radiographic contrast agent, and the impact of length of time of contrast outside of the refrigerator on US contrast appearance. We scanned 50-ml saline bags to assess the appearance and duration of US contrast with different delivery systems (injection vs. infusion).
resultsConsistent contrast visualization was achieved at a mechanical index of 0.06-0.17 and 0.11-0.48 for the L9 and L12 MHz transducers (P < 0.01), respectively. Thus, it was necessary to increase the mechanical index for better contrast visualization of the microbubbles with a higher transducer frequency. The lowest mechanical index for earliest visible microbubble destruction was 0.21 for the 9 MHz and 0.39 for the 12 MHz (P < 0.01) transducers. The 0.5% US contrast agent volume to bladder filling was the most optimal. At this concentration, the mean time to visualize homogenous contrast was 2 min and destruction of approximately half of the microbubbles in the field of view occurred in 7.8 min using the 9-MHz transducer. During contrast infusion, the contrast dose needed to be reduced to 0.12% for maintenance of optimal visualization of microbubbles. There was no deleterious effect on the visualization of contrast in the presence of urine or radiographic contrast agent. Infusion of the US contrast agent speeded visualization of homogeneous enhancement compared with injection. Time outside refrigeration did not affect contrast performance.
conclusionTransducer mechanical index settings need to be optimized. A very low dose of the US contrast agent Optison® will suffice for intravesical application, i.e. 0.12% to 0.50% of the bladder filling volume. The presence of urine or radiographic contrast agent did not compromise contrast visualization. The best mode of administration is the infusion method due to fast homogenous distribution at the lowest dose of 0.12%. Leaving the US contrast agent outside the refrigerator for an hour does not affect the microbubbles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.