Correction of non-linear propagation artifact in contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of carotid arteries: Methods and in vitro evaluation

Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 41, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 1938-1947

  Yildiz, Yesna O ^a   Eckersley, Robert J ^b   Senior, Roxy ^c   Lim, Adrian K P ^d   Cosgrove, David ^e   Tang, Meng Xing ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL BROMPTON HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d CHARING CROSS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^e HAMMERSMITH HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Artifact correction; Contrast enhanced ultrasound; Microbubbles; Non linear propagation artifact; Perfusion quantification

Indexed keywords

TISSUE; ULTRASONIC IMAGING;

ARTIFACT CORRECTION; CONTRAST ENHANCED ULTRASOUND; MICROBUBBLES; NON LINEAR; PERFUSION QUANTIFICATION;

IMAGE ACQUISITION;

SONOVUE; CONTRAST AGENT BR1; CONTRAST MEDIUM; PHOSPHOLIPID; SULFUR HEXAFLUORIDE;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT REDUCTION; B SCAN; CAROTID ARTERY FLOW; CONTRAST ENHANCED ULTRASOUND; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTRAST TO TISSUE RATIO; CONTROLLED STUDY; ECHOGRAPHY; IMAGE PROCESSING; IN VITRO STUDY; MICROBUBBLE; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; SIGNAL PROCESSING; ARTIFACT; BLOOD FLOW VELOCITY; CAROTID ARTERY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DEVICES; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGING PHANTOM; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RADIATION SCATTERING; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASOUND;

ARTIFACTS; BLOOD FLOW VELOCITY; CAROTID ARTERIES; CONTRAST MEDIA; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; NONLINEAR DYNAMICS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; PHOSPHOLIPIDS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SCATTERING, RADIATION; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SULFUR HEXAFLUORIDE; ULTRASONIC WAVES; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

EID: 84937789703     PISSN: 03015629     EISSN: 1879291X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2015.03.014     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bamber JC, Dickinson RJ. Ultrasonic B-scanning: A computer-simulation. Phys Med Biol 1980;25:463-479.
2. Cosgrove D, Harvey C. Clinical uses of microbubbles in diagnosis and treatment. Med Biol Eng Comput 2009;47:813-826.
3. Eckersley RJ, Chin CT, Burns PN. Optimising phase and amplitude modulation schemes for imaging microbubble contrast agents at low acoustic power. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005;31:213-219.
4. Feinstein SB. Contrast ultrasound imaging of the carotid artery vasa vasorum and atherosclerotic plaque neovascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:236-243.
5. Jensen JA. Deconvolution of ultrasound images. Ultrason Imaging 1992; 14:1-15.
6. Krishnan S, Hamilton JD, O'Donnell M. Suppression of propagating second harmonic in ultrasound contrast imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 1998;45:704-711.
7. Madsen EL, Frank GR, Dong F. Liquid or solid ultrasonically tissuemimicking materials with very low scatter. Ultrasound Med Biol 1998;24:535-542.
8. Mulvana H, Stride E, Tang MX, Hajnal JV, Eckersley RJ. The influence of gas saturation on microbubble stability. Ultrasound Med Biol 2012;38:1097-1100.
9. Olivier C, Jean-François A, Gabriel M, Mickael T, Mathias F. Suppression of tissue harmonics for pulse-inversion contrast imaging using time reversal. Phys Med Biol 2008;53:5469-5480.
10. Pasovic M, Danilouchkine M, Faez T, van Neer P, Cachard C, van der Steen AFW, BassetO, de Jong N. Second harmonic inversion for ultrasound contrast harmonic imaging. PhysMedBiol 2011;56:3163-3180.
11. Pasovic M, Danilouchkine M, Matte G, van der Steen AFW, Basset O, de Jong N, Cachard C. Broadband reduction of the second harmonic distortion during nonlinear ultrasound wave propagation. Ultrasound Med Biol 2010;36:1568-1580.
12. Renaud G, Bosch JG, ten Kate GL, Shamdasani V, Entrekin R, de Jong N, van derSteenAFW.Counter-propagatingwave interaction for contrastenhanced ultrasound imaging. Phys Med Biol 2012;57:L9-L18.
13. Shen CC, Hsieh YC. Optimal transmit phasing on tissue background suppression in contrast harmonic imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2008;34:1820-1831.
14. Staub D, Schinkel AFL, Coll B, Coli S, van der Steen AFW, Reed JD, Krueger C, Thomenius KE, Adam D, Sijbrands EJ, ten Cate FJ, Feinstein SB. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of the vasa vasorum. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3:761-771.
15. Stride E, Tang MX, Eckersley RJ. Physical phenomena affecting quantitative imaging of ultrasound contrast agents. Appl Acoust 2009;70: 1352-1362.
16. Tang MX, Eckersley RJ. Nonlinear propagation of ultrasound through microbubble contrast agents and implications for Imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2006;53:2406-2415.
17. Tang MX, Kamiyama N, Eckersley RJ. Effects of nonlinear propagation in ultrasound contrast agent imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2010;36: 459-466.
18. Tang MX, Loughran J, Stride E, Zhang D, Eckersley RJ. Effect of bubble shell nonlinearity on ultrasound nonlinear propagation through microbubble populations. J Acoust Soc Am 2011;129: EL76-EL82.
19. Tang MX, Mulvana H, Gauthier T, Lim AKP, Cosgrove DO, Eckersley RJ, Stride E. Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging: A review of sources of variability. Interface Focus 2011;1:520-539.