Safety and Efficacy of Commercially Available Ultrasound Contrast Agents for Rest and Stress Echocardiography. A Multicenter Experience

Melda S. Dolan, Simil S. Gala, Saritha Dodla, Sahar S. Abdelmoneim, Feng Xie, David Cloutier, Michelle Bierig, Sharon L. Mulvagh, Thomas Richard Porter, Arthur J. Labovitz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

103 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The authors sought to define the risks versus benefits of ultrasound contrast agents in patients undergoing stress echocardiography. Background: The Food and Drug Administration recently placed a "black box" warning on the ultrasound contrast agents Definity (Bristol-Myers Squibb Medical Imaging, Billerica, Massachusetts) and Optison (GE Healthcare, Princeton, New Jersey) after their use was temporally related to 4 deaths. The safety of contrast has not been systematically evaluated. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 42,408 patients at 3 different institutions who had baseline suboptimal images and/or underwent myocardial perfusion imaging and received contrast agents; 18,749 of these underwent stress echocardiography. The outcomes (death and myocardial infarction [MI]) within 30 min, 24 h, and during long-term follow-up were recorded. Results: No deaths or MIs were observed within 30 min; 1 death and 5 nonfatal MIs were observed within 24 h. This was not different from a matched cohort of 15,989 patients not receiving contrast. At 1 h and at 30 days after contrast administration, no significant differences in death rates or MIs were observed between patients who did and did not receive contrast during their stress echocardiogram. Endocardial border visualization in patients with suboptimal images resulted in comparable sensitivity (81% vs. 73%, p = NS) and diagnostic accuracy (82% vs. 77%, p = NS) for wall motion analysis compared with patients with optimal image quality. At long-term follow-up, abnormal wall motion and/or myocardial perfusion predicted adverse outcomes (20.6%) when compared with patients with normal studies (3.7%). Conclusions: Despite recent warnings regarding echocardiographic contrast, our findings indicate it is a safe and useful diagnostic tool in assessment of patients suspected of having coronary artery disease.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)32-38
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume53
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 6 2009

Fingerprint

Stress Echocardiography
Contrast Media
Safety
Drug Labeling
Myocardial Perfusion Imaging
Diagnostic Imaging
United States Food and Drug Administration
Coronary Artery Disease
Perfusion
Myocardial Infarction
Delivery of Health Care
Mortality

Keywords

  • contrast
  • echocardiography
  • safety
  • stress

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Safety and Efficacy of Commercially Available Ultrasound Contrast Agents for Rest and Stress Echocardiography. A Multicenter Experience. / Dolan, Melda S.; Gala, Simil S.; Dodla, Saritha; Abdelmoneim, Sahar S.; Xie, Feng; Cloutier, David; Bierig, Michelle; Mulvagh, Sharon L.; Porter, Thomas Richard; Labovitz, Arthur J.

In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 53, No. 1, 06.01.2009, p. 32-38.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dolan, Melda S. ; Gala, Simil S. ; Dodla, Saritha ; Abdelmoneim, Sahar S. ; Xie, Feng ; Cloutier, David ; Bierig, Michelle ; Mulvagh, Sharon L. ; Porter, Thomas Richard ; Labovitz, Arthur J. / Safety and Efficacy of Commercially Available Ultrasound Contrast Agents for Rest and Stress Echocardiography. A Multicenter Experience. In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2009 ; Vol. 53, No. 1. pp. 32-38.
@article{00f78d884adf4d50b9b3e76c70d06ee8,
title = "Safety and Efficacy of Commercially Available Ultrasound Contrast Agents for Rest and Stress Echocardiography. A Multicenter Experience",
abstract = "Objectives: The authors sought to define the risks versus benefits of ultrasound contrast agents in patients undergoing stress echocardiography. Background: The Food and Drug Administration recently placed a {"}black box{"} warning on the ultrasound contrast agents Definity (Bristol-Myers Squibb Medical Imaging, Billerica, Massachusetts) and Optison (GE Healthcare, Princeton, New Jersey) after their use was temporally related to 4 deaths. The safety of contrast has not been systematically evaluated. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 42,408 patients at 3 different institutions who had baseline suboptimal images and/or underwent myocardial perfusion imaging and received contrast agents; 18,749 of these underwent stress echocardiography. The outcomes (death and myocardial infarction [MI]) within 30 min, 24 h, and during long-term follow-up were recorded. Results: No deaths or MIs were observed within 30 min; 1 death and 5 nonfatal MIs were observed within 24 h. This was not different from a matched cohort of 15,989 patients not receiving contrast. At 1 h and at 30 days after contrast administration, no significant differences in death rates or MIs were observed between patients who did and did not receive contrast during their stress echocardiogram. Endocardial border visualization in patients with suboptimal images resulted in comparable sensitivity (81{\%} vs. 73{\%}, p = NS) and diagnostic accuracy (82{\%} vs. 77{\%}, p = NS) for wall motion analysis compared with patients with optimal image quality. At long-term follow-up, abnormal wall motion and/or myocardial perfusion predicted adverse outcomes (20.6{\%}) when compared with patients with normal studies (3.7{\%}). Conclusions: Despite recent warnings regarding echocardiographic contrast, our findings indicate it is a safe and useful diagnostic tool in assessment of patients suspected of having coronary artery disease.",
keywords = "contrast, echocardiography, safety, stress",
author = "Dolan, {Melda S.} and Gala, {Simil S.} and Saritha Dodla and Abdelmoneim, {Sahar S.} and Feng Xie and David Cloutier and Michelle Bierig and Mulvagh, {Sharon L.} and Porter, {Thomas Richard} and Labovitz, {Arthur J.}",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
day = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacc.2008.08.066",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "53",
pages = "32--38",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Cardiology",
issn = "0735-1097",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Safety and Efficacy of Commercially Available Ultrasound Contrast Agents for Rest and Stress Echocardiography. A Multicenter Experience

AU - Dolan, Melda S.

AU - Gala, Simil S.

AU - Dodla, Saritha

AU - Abdelmoneim, Sahar S.

AU - Xie, Feng

AU - Cloutier, David

AU - Bierig, Michelle

AU - Mulvagh, Sharon L.

AU - Porter, Thomas Richard

AU - Labovitz, Arthur J.

PY - 2009/1/6

Y1 - 2009/1/6

N2 - Objectives: The authors sought to define the risks versus benefits of ultrasound contrast agents in patients undergoing stress echocardiography. Background: The Food and Drug Administration recently placed a "black box" warning on the ultrasound contrast agents Definity (Bristol-Myers Squibb Medical Imaging, Billerica, Massachusetts) and Optison (GE Healthcare, Princeton, New Jersey) after their use was temporally related to 4 deaths. The safety of contrast has not been systematically evaluated. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 42,408 patients at 3 different institutions who had baseline suboptimal images and/or underwent myocardial perfusion imaging and received contrast agents; 18,749 of these underwent stress echocardiography. The outcomes (death and myocardial infarction [MI]) within 30 min, 24 h, and during long-term follow-up were recorded. Results: No deaths or MIs were observed within 30 min; 1 death and 5 nonfatal MIs were observed within 24 h. This was not different from a matched cohort of 15,989 patients not receiving contrast. At 1 h and at 30 days after contrast administration, no significant differences in death rates or MIs were observed between patients who did and did not receive contrast during their stress echocardiogram. Endocardial border visualization in patients with suboptimal images resulted in comparable sensitivity (81% vs. 73%, p = NS) and diagnostic accuracy (82% vs. 77%, p = NS) for wall motion analysis compared with patients with optimal image quality. At long-term follow-up, abnormal wall motion and/or myocardial perfusion predicted adverse outcomes (20.6%) when compared with patients with normal studies (3.7%). Conclusions: Despite recent warnings regarding echocardiographic contrast, our findings indicate it is a safe and useful diagnostic tool in assessment of patients suspected of having coronary artery disease.

AB - Objectives: The authors sought to define the risks versus benefits of ultrasound contrast agents in patients undergoing stress echocardiography. Background: The Food and Drug Administration recently placed a "black box" warning on the ultrasound contrast agents Definity (Bristol-Myers Squibb Medical Imaging, Billerica, Massachusetts) and Optison (GE Healthcare, Princeton, New Jersey) after their use was temporally related to 4 deaths. The safety of contrast has not been systematically evaluated. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 42,408 patients at 3 different institutions who had baseline suboptimal images and/or underwent myocardial perfusion imaging and received contrast agents; 18,749 of these underwent stress echocardiography. The outcomes (death and myocardial infarction [MI]) within 30 min, 24 h, and during long-term follow-up were recorded. Results: No deaths or MIs were observed within 30 min; 1 death and 5 nonfatal MIs were observed within 24 h. This was not different from a matched cohort of 15,989 patients not receiving contrast. At 1 h and at 30 days after contrast administration, no significant differences in death rates or MIs were observed between patients who did and did not receive contrast during their stress echocardiogram. Endocardial border visualization in patients with suboptimal images resulted in comparable sensitivity (81% vs. 73%, p = NS) and diagnostic accuracy (82% vs. 77%, p = NS) for wall motion analysis compared with patients with optimal image quality. At long-term follow-up, abnormal wall motion and/or myocardial perfusion predicted adverse outcomes (20.6%) when compared with patients with normal studies (3.7%). Conclusions: Despite recent warnings regarding echocardiographic contrast, our findings indicate it is a safe and useful diagnostic tool in assessment of patients suspected of having coronary artery disease.

KW - contrast

KW - echocardiography

KW - safety

KW - stress

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=57949092225&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=57949092225&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.08.066

DO - 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.08.066

M3 - Article

VL - 53

SP - 32

EP - 38

JO - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

SN - 0735-1097

IS - 1

ER -