Ultrasound contrast agents: Balancing safety versus effi cacy

Expert Opinion on Drug Safety

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 49-56

  Main, Michael L ^a   Goldman, Jonathan H ^b   Grayburn, Paul A ^c  

^a SAINT LUKE S MID AMERICA HEART INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c BAYLOR UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Black box warning; Contrast echocardiography; Contrast enhanced ultrasound; Definity ; FDA; Optison ; Ultrasound contrast agents

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; PERFLUTREN;

ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME; ALLERGY; ANAPHYLAXIS; CARDIOGENIC SHOCK; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE LUNG DISEASE; COMORBIDITY; CONTRAST ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DEATH; DIABETES MELLITUS; DRUG CONTRAINDICATION; DRUG FATALITY; DRUG LABELING; DRUG SAFETY; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; ECHOGRAPHY; EMPHYSEMA; FIBRINOLYTIC THERAPY; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEART ARRHYTHMIA; HEART FAILURE; HEART INFARCTION; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE EJECTION FRACTION; HEART MUSCLE REVASCULARIZATION; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; LUNG EMBOLISM; MORTALITY; NONHUMAN; PATIENT MONITORING; PEER REVIEW; PERICARDIOCENTESIS; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; PREVALENCE; PULMONARY HYPERTENSION; QT PROLONGATION; RESPIRATORY FAILURE; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; STRESS ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; TRANSTHORACIC ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY;

ALBUMINS; CONTRAST MEDIA; DRUG LABELING; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; FLUOROCARBONS; HUMANS; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 67649416464     PISSN: 14740338     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1517/14740330802658581     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Senior R, Soman P, Khattar RS, Lahiri A. Improved endocardial visualization with second harmonic imaging compared with fundamental two-dimensional echocardiographic imaging. Am Heart J 1999 ; 138 : 163-168 (Pubitemid 29331138)
2. Mulvagh SL, Rakowski H, Vannan MA. American society of echocardiography consensus statement on the clinical applications of ultrasonic contrast agents in echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2008 ; 11 : 1179 -201 • This American Society of Echocardiography guidelines document was published in November 2008 and incorporates recently published safety data.
3. Main ML, Grayburn PA. Clinical applications of transpulmonary contrast echocardiography. Am Heart J 1999 ; 137 : 144-153 (Pubitemid 29038373)
4. Geny B, Mettauer B, Muan B, et al. Safety and effi cacy of a new transpulmonary echo contrast agent in echocardiographic studies in patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993 ; 22 : 1193-1198 (Pubitemid 23285776)
5. Feinstein SB, Cheirif J, Ten Cate, et al. Safety and effi cacy of a new transpulmonary ultrasound contrast agent: initial multicenter clinical results. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990 ; 16 : 316-324 (Pubitemid 20245847)
6. Crouse LJ, Cherif J, Hanly DE. Opacifi cation and border delineation improvement in patients with suboptimal border defi nition in routine echocardiography: results of the Phase III Albunex multicenter trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993 ; 22 : 1494-1500 (Pubitemid 23316378)
7. Rainbird A, Mulvagh S, Oh H, et al. Contrast dobutamine stress echocardiography: clinical practice assessment in 300 consecutive patients. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2001 ; 14 : 78-385 (Pubitemid 33095679)
8. Vlassak I, Rubin D, Odabashian J. Contrast and harmonic imaging improves the accuracy and effi ciency of novice readers for dobutamine stress echocardiography. Echocardiography 2002 ; 19 : 483-488 (Pubitemid 35026181)
9. Dolan M, Riad K, El-Shafei A. Effect of intravenous contrast for left ventricular opacifi cation and border defi nition on sensitivity and specifi city of dobutamine stress echocardiography compared with coronary angiography in technically diffi cult patients. Am Heart J 2001 ; 142 : 908-915 (Pubitemid 33016211)
10. Thanigaraji S, Nease R, Schechtman K, et al. Use of contrast for image enhancement during stress echocardiograph is cost-effective and reduces additional diagnostic testing. Am J Cardiol 2001 ; 87 : 1430-1432 (Pubitemid 32523039)
11. Hundley GH, Kizilbash AM, Afridi I, et al. Administration of an intravenous perfl uorocarbon contrast agent improves echocardiographic determination of left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction: comparison with cine magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 998; 32 : 1426-1432 (Pubitemid 28522405)
12. Thompson HL, Basmadjian AJ, Rainbird AJ, et al. Contrast echocardiography improves the accuracy and reproducibility of left ventricular remodeling measurements: a prospective; randomly assigned, blinded study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001 ; 38 : 867 (Pubitemid 32835766)
13. Malm S, Frigstad S, Sagberg E, et al. Accurate and reproducible measurement of left ventricular volume and ejection fraction by contrast echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004 ; 44 : 1030-1035
14. Nayyar S, Magalski A, Khumri TM, et al. Contrast administration reduces interobserver variability in determination of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and good baseline endocardial border delineation. Am J Cardiol 2006 ; 98 : 1110-1114 (Pubitemid 44486153)
15. Cohen JL, Cheirif J, Segar DS, et al. Improved left ventricular endocardial border delineation and opacifi cation with OPTISON (FS069), a new echocardiographic contrast agent. Results of a phase III Multicenter Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998 ; 32 : 746-752 (Pubitemid 28435264)
16. Skyba DM, Camarano G, Goodman BS, et al. Hemodynamic characteristics, myocardial kinetics and microvascular rheology of FS-069, a second generation ecohcardiographic contrast agent capable of producing myocardial opacifi cation form a venous injection. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996 ; 28 : 1292-1300 (Pubitemid 26377008)
17. Kitzman DW, Goldman ME, Gillam LD, et al. Effi cacy and safety of the novel ultrasound contrast agent perfl utren (defi nity) in patients with suboptimal baseline left ventricular echocardiographic images. Am J Cardiol 2000 ; 86 : 669-674 (Pubitemid 30687427)
18. Lindner JR, Song J, Jayaweera AR, et al. Microvascular rheology of Defi nity microbubbles after intra-arterial and intravenous administration. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2002 ; 15 : 396-403 (Pubitemid 46002653)
19. New US Food and Drug Administration prescribing information for Definity® approved October 10th 2007. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/ cder/foi/ label/2007/021064s007lbl.pdf [Accessed 13 October 2007 ]
20. Hensley S. Warnings on ultrasound imaging drugs to turn black. Available from: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007;/10/07/ warnings-on-ultrasound-imaging- drugs-toturn- black/ [Accessed 13 October 2008 ]
21. Main ML, Goldman JH, Grayburn PA. Thinking outside the "box"-the ultrasound contrast controversy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007 ; 50 : 2434 -7 •• This opinion paper questioned the October 2007 FDA mandated warnings and contraindications for ultrasound contrast agents. (Pubitemid 350266276)
22. Grayburn PA. Product safety compromises patient safety (an unjustifi ed black box warning on ultrasound contrast agents by the Food and Drug Administration). Am J Cardiol 2008 ; 101 : 892-893
23. Douglas PS, Weyman AE, Lindner JR, Wei K. Contrast echocardiography: past, present, and future? J Am Coll Cardiol Img 2008;1:107-110
24. Hildner FJ, Javier RP, Ramaswamy K. Pseudocomplications of cardiac catheterization. Chest 1973 ; 63 : 15 •• This paper established the concept of pseudocomplication, an important consideration in the current controversy surrounding ultrasound contrast agents.
25. Hildner FJ, Javier RP, Tolentino A, Samet P. Pseuodocomplications of cardiac catheterization: update. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1982 ; 8 : 43
26. Johnson LW, Lozner EC, Johnson S, et al. Coronary angiography 1984-1987: a report of the registry of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. I. Results and complications. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1989 ; 17 : 5
27. Stuart RJ Jr, Ellestad MH. National survey of exercise stress testing facilities. Chest 1980 ; 77 : 94-97 (Pubitemid 10219241)
28. Picano E. Sustainability of medical imaging. BMJ 2004 ; 328 : 578-580 (Pubitemid 38316634)
29. Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, et al. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic testing. Circulation 2007 ; 116 : 1290-1305 (Pubitemid 47517541)
30. Seward JB, Khandheria BK, Oh JK, et al. Critical appraisal of transesophageal echocardiography: limitations, pitfalls, and complications. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1992 ; 5 (3): 228-305
31. Marcovitz PA, Williamson BD, Armstrong WF. Toxic methemoglobinemia caused by topical anesthetic given before transesophageal echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1991 ; 4 : 615
32. Kornbluth M, Liang DH, Brown P, et al. Contrast echocardiography is superior to tissue harmonics for assessment of left ventricular function in mechanically ventilated patients. Am Heart J 2000 ; 140 : 291-296 (Pubitemid 30641593)
33. Reilly JP, Tunick PA, Timmermans RJ, et al. Contrast echocardiography clairifi es uninterpretable wall motion in intensive care unit patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000 ; 35 : 485-490 (Pubitemid 30125542)
34. Yong Y, Wu D, Fernandes V, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of contrast echocardiography on evaluation of cardiac function in technically very diffi cult patients in the intensive care unit. Am J Cardiol 2002 ; 89 : 711-718 (Pubitemid 34230568)
35. Keen C. Ultrasound contrast advocates take aim at FDA black box warning. Available from: http://www.auntminnie. com/index.asp?Sec=sup&Sub= car&Pag=dis &ItemId=79499 [Accessed 13 October 2008 ]
36. Wood S. FDA facing mounting pressure to rethink echo-contrast warning labels.theheart.org. [Clinical Conditions > Heart failure > Heart failure]; November 28, 2007. Accessed from: http://www.theheart. org/article/830665.do [Accessed 13 October 2008]
37. Dixon BK. FDA gets fl ak for contrast warning. Int Med News 2008 ; 41 : 1-5
38. Kusnetzky LL, Khalid A, Khumri TM, et al. Acute mortality in hospitalized patients undergoing echocardiography with and without an ultrasound contrast agent: results in 18,671 patients. J Am Cardiol Coll 2008 ; 51 : 1704 -6 •• This single-center retrospective study demonstrated no increase in mortality in hospitalized patients undergoing echocardiography with an ultrasound contrast agent (in comparison with non-contrast echocardiography), despite higher clinical acuity and more baseline co-morbidity in the contrast echocardiography group.
39. Main ML, Ryan AC, Davis TE, et al. Acute mortality in hospitalized patients undergoing echocardiography with and without an ultrasound contrast agent; multicenter results in 4,300,966 consecutive patients. Am J Cardiol 2008 ; 102 : 1742 -6 •• This large, retrospective, multicenter registry study (similar in design to [38] ) showed no increase in crude mortality in patients undergoing contrast-enhanced echocardiography, in comparison with non-contrast-enhanced examinations. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed contrast-enhanced echocardiography was associated with signifi cantly lower mortality.
40. Herzog CA. Incidence of adverse events associated with use of perfl utren contrast agents for echocardiography. JAMA 2008 ; 299 ; 2023-2025 (Pubitemid 351656599)
41. Wei K, Mulvagh SL, Carson L, et al. The safety of Defi nity and Optison for ultrasound image enhancement: a retrospective analysis of 78,383 administered contrast doses. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2008 ; 11 : 1202 -6 • This American Society of Echocardiography sponsored registry revealed that ultrasound contrast agent administration is associated with an ~ 1:10,000 serious adverse event rate.
42. Dolan MS, Gala S, Dodla S, et al. Safety and effi cacy of commercially available ultrasound contrast agents for rest and stress echocardiography: a multicenter experience. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009 ; 53 (1): 32-38
43. Gabriel RS, Smyth YM, Menon V, et al. Safety of ultrasound contrast agents in stress echocardiography. Am J Cardiol 2008 ; 102 : 1269-1272
44. Shaikh K, Chang SM, Peterson L, et al. Safety of contrast administration for endocardial enhancement during stress echocardiography compared with noncontrast stress. Am J Cardiol 2008 ; 102 : 1444-1450
45. FDA Advisory Committee briefi ng document for the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee June 24, 2008: safety considerations in the development of ultrasound contrast agents. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/ ohrms/dockets/ ac/08/briefi ng/2008-4369b1-01.pdf [Accessed 13 September 2008 ]
46. Erb JM, Shanewise JS. Intraoperative contrast echocardiography with intravenous optison does not cause hemodynamic changes during cardiac surgery. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2001 ; 14 : 595-600 (Pubitemid 33100004)
47. Summary minutes of the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee June 24, 2008. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/08/ minutes/2008-4369m1-fi nal.pdf [Accessed 13 September 2008 ]
48. Stiles S. FDA panel tries to smooth out the bumps in echo contrast-agent approval decisions.theheart.org. [Clinical Conditions > Clinical cardiology > Clinical cardiology]; June 26, 2008. Available from: http:// www.theheart.org/article/878433.do [Accessed 13 October 2008]
49. Stiles S. FDA backpedals on warnings in echo-contrast labeling.theheart.org. [Clinical Conditions > Clinical cardiology > Clinical cardiology]; May 13, 2008. Available from: http:// www.theheart.org/ article/864915.do [Accessed 13 October 2008]
50. United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research alert for healthcare providers updated on July 17, 2008. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/ infopage/microbubble/default.htm [Accessed 13 October 2008 ]
51. US echo contrast agent use dips in Q2. Available from: http://www.auntminnie. com/index.asp?Sec=sup&Sub=bai&Pag=dis &ItemId=82115 [Accessed 13 October 2008 ]