Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42141289›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2026

Type, severity, frequency and management of adverse reactions associated with ultrasound contrast agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Honoria Ocagli, Laura Romanini, Adea Llane, Stefano di Nola, Aart J van der Molen, Marie-France Bellin, Torkel Brismar, Jean-Michel Correas, Katerina Deike, Ilona A Dekkers and 12 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Honoria OcagliUnit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences, and Public Health, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Laura RomaniniDepartment of Radiology, ASST Cremona, Cremona, Italy.
Adea LlaneUnit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences, and Public Health, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Stefano di NolaUnit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences, and Public Health, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Aart J van der MolenDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Marie-France BellinUniversity Paris Saclay, AP-HP, University Hospital Bicêtre, Department of Radiology, BioMaps, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Torkel BrismarDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Unit of Radiology, Karolinska Institute and Department of Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital in Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jean-Michel CorreasUniversité de Paris, AP-HP, Groupe Hospitalier Necker, DMU Imagina, Service de Radiologie, Paris, France.
Katerina DeikeClinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Clinic Bonn, and German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, DZNE, Bonn, Germany.
Ilona A DekkersDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Remy W F GeenenDepartment of Radiology, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Gertraud HeinzDepartment of Radiology, Landesklinikum St Pölten, St Pölten, Austria.
Andreas H MahnkenDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Marburg University Hospital, Marburg, Germany.
Carlo A MallioFondazione Policlinico and Research Unit Radiology, Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Roma, Italy.
Carlo C QuattrocchiCentre for Medical Sciences CISMed, University of Trento, Trento, Italy.
Alexander RadbruchClinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University Clinic Bonn, and German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, DZNE, Bonn, Germany.
Peter ReimerDepartment of Radiology, Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Giles RoditiDepartment of Radiology, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Carmen SebastiàDepartment of Radiology, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Olivier ClémentUniversité de Paris, AP-HP, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, DMU Imagina, Service de Radiologie, Paris, France.
Dario GregoriUnit of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Cardiac, Thoracic, Vascular Sciences, and Public Health, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Michele BertolottoDepartment of Radiology, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy. bertolot@units.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5583-350X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis are aimed at evaluating the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) following administration of clinically approved ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) in adults and children, to assess risks in patients with cardiovascular disease and in pregnancy, and to evaluate the effectiveness of emergency management of severe ADRs. MATERIALS AND

methodsA PRISMA 2020 systematic review was conducted searching PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed quality. Incidence estimates were pooled when feasible, stratified by age group, contrast agent, and administration route.

resultsSeventy-four studies encompassing > 1 million adults and > 36,000 children were included, contributing multiple analytic cohorts to the quantitative synthesis. Severe acute ADRs were extremely rare (6 and 16 cases per 100,000 in adults and children, respectively) and absent following endocavitary administration in children. Non-severe acute ADRs occurred in 11 and 8 cases per 10,000 adults and children, respectively. Delayed reactions were very rare (< 1 case per million in adults). No significant safety differences emerged between UCA products. The incidence of ADRs in patients with cardiovascular disease was analogous to the general population. No ADRs were reported in pregnant women. Standard emergency management was effective in almost all serious cases, though rare fatalities occurred.

conclusionUCAs show an excellent safety profile in adults and children, with very rare severe ADRs and few non-severe, typically self-limiting reactions. Strict adherence to recommended emergency management protocols mitigates the remaining risks, supporting safe use across a broad range of clinical indications. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023432668. KEY POINTS: Question What is the incidence, type, and severity of acute and delayed ADRs associated with clinically approved UCAs across different patient populations? Findings Severe acute adverse reactions are very rare, and non-severe reactions are rare and self-limiting, with no significant safety differences between adults, children, or patients with cardiovascular disease. Clinical relevant UCAs show an excellent safety profile across populations. These findings support their safe clinical use as reliable alternatives to iodine-based and gadolinium-based contrast agents in routine diagnostic imaging.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsChildFemaleHumansIncidencePregnancyUltrasonographyContrast MediaContrast-enhanced ultrasoundContrast mediaDrug-related side effects and adverse reactionsMicrobubblesSafety

Identifiers

PMID42141289
PMCPMC13574902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.