Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Insights into Imaging
Published in: Insights into Imaging 2/2013

Open Access 01-04-2013 | Review

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound performed under urgent conditions. Indications, review of the technique, clinical examples and limitations

Authors: Demosthenes D. Cokkinos, Eleni Antypa, Ioannis Kalogeropoulos, Dimitrios Tomais, Emmanuel Ismailos, Ioannis Matsiras, Stylianos Benakis, Ploutarchos N. Piperopoulos

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 2/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is an imaging technique with various indications, most of which refer to scheduled examinations. However, CEUS can also be performed under urgent conditions for the investigation of many different clinical questions. This article reviews basic physics of ultrasound contrast agents and examines the commonest urgent clinical applications of CEUS. These include, among others, abdominal solid organ trauma and infarcts, scrotal and penile pathology and blood vessel imaging. Patients can be examined with a very short time delay at their bedside, without exposure to ionising radiation or risk of anaphylactic reaction and renal failure, while contraindications are minimal. CEUS technique is described for various urgent indications and imaging examples from our department’s experience are presented. Safety matters and limitations of CEUS are also mentioned.
Teaching Points
  • Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) can be performed urgently for various clinical applications.
  • Abdominal indications include solid organ trauma and infarcts.
  • CEUS in abdominal organ trauma correlates well with CT and can replace it for patient follow-up.
  • CEUS images testicular torsion, infection and infarction, as well as testicular and penile trauma.
  • Blood vessels can be assessed with CEUS for obstruction, aneurysm, thrombosis and dissection.
Literature
1.
Wilson SR, Burns PN (2010) Microbubble-enhanced US in body imaging: what role? Radiology 257:24–39PubMedCrossRef
2.
Morin SH, Lim AKP, Cobbold JFL et al (2007) Use of second generation contrast enhanced ultrasound in the assessment of focal liver lesions. World J Gastroenterol 13:963–5970
3.
Brannigan M, Burns PN, Wilson SR (2004) Blood flow patterns in focal liver lesions at microbubble-enhanced US. Radiographics 24:921–935PubMedCrossRef
4.
Uhlendorf V, Scholle FD, Reinhardt M (2000) Acoustic behaviour of current ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasonics 38:81–86PubMedCrossRef
5.
Ripollés T, Martínez-Pérez MJ, Blanc E et al (2011) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in Crohn’s disease: technique, image interpretation and clinical applications. Insights Imaging 2(6):639–652PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
EFSUMB study group (2008) Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)—update 2008. Ultraschall Med 29:28–44CrossRef
7.
Quaia E (2011) The real capabilities of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the characterization of solid focal liver lesions. Eur Radiol 21:457–462PubMedCrossRef
8.
Burns PN, Wilson SR, Simpson DH (2000) Pulse inversion imaging of liver blood flow: improved method for characterizing focal masses with microbubble contrast. Investig Radiol 35:58–71CrossRef
9.
Seitz K, Bernatik T, Strobel D et al (2010) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the characterization of focal liver lesions in clinical practice (DEGUM Multicenter Trial): CEUS vs. MRI-a prospective comparison in 269 patients. Ultraschall Med 31(5):492–499PubMedCrossRef
10.
Bauer A, Solbiati L (2003) Ultrasound contrast agents. In: Solbiati L (ed) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of liver diseases. Springer, Milan, pp 21–26CrossRef
11.
Burns P (2003) Contrast ultrasound technology. In: Solbiati L (ed) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of liver diseases. Springer, Milan, pp 1–18CrossRef
12.
Correas JM, Bridal L, Lesavre A et al (2011) Ultrasound contrast agents: properties, principles of action, tolerance, and artifacts. Eur Radiol 11:1316–1328CrossRef
13.
Kitzman DW, Goldman ME, Gillam LD et al (2000) Efficacy and safety of the novel ultrasound contrast agent perflutren (definity) in patients with suboptimal baseline left ventricular echocardiographic images. Am J Cardiol 86(6):669–674PubMedCrossRef
14.
Piscaglia F, Bolondi L (2006) Italian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (SIUMB) Study Group on Ultrasound Contrast Agents. The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations. Ultrasound Med Biol 32(9):1369–1375PubMedCrossRef
15.
International Collaborative Study of Severe Anaphylaxis (2003) Risk of anaphylaxis in a hospital population in relation to the use of various drugs: an international study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 12(3):195–202CrossRef
16.
Cochran ST, Bomyea K, Sayre JW (2001) Trends in adverse events after IV administration of contrast media. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176(6):1385–1388PubMedCrossRef
17.
Main ML, Goldman JH, Grayburn PA (2007) Thinking outside the “box”—the ultrasound contrast controversy. JACC 50(25):2434–2437PubMedCrossRef
18.
US Food and Drug Administration (2008) Micro-bubble contrast agents (marketed as definity (perflutren lipid microsphere) injectable suspension and optison (perflutren protein-type A microspheres for injection). US Food and Drug Administration US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD. USA. Available via: http://​www.​fda.​gov/​Safety/​MedWatch/​SafetyInformatio​n/​ SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm092270.htm. Accessed 6 April 2012
19.
20.
Kretschmer KH, Bohndorf K, Pohlenz O (1997) The role of sonography in abdominal trauma: the European experience. Emerg Radiol 2:62–67CrossRef
21.
Yoshii H, Sato M, Yamamoto S et al (1998) Usefulness and limitations of ultrasonography in the initial evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma 45:45–51PubMedCrossRef
22.
Healy MA, Simons RK, Winchell RJ et al (1996) A prospective evaluation of abdominal ultrasound in blunt abdominal trauma: is it useful? J Trauma 40:875–883CrossRef
23.
Rozycki GS, Ochsner MG, Jaffin JH (1995) A prospective study of surgeon-performed ultrasound as the primary adjuvant modality for injured patient assessment. J Trauma 39:492–498PubMedCrossRef
24.
Brown MA, Sirlin CB, Hoyt DB et al (2006) Screening ultrasound in blunt abdominal trauma. J Intensive Care Med 18:253–260CrossRef
25.
Scalea TM, Rodriguez A, Chiu WC et al (1999) Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST): results from an international consensus conference. J Trauma 46:466–472PubMedCrossRef
26.
Pearl WS, Todd KH (1996) Ultrasonography for the initial evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma: a review of prospective trials. Ann Emerg Med 27:353–361PubMedCrossRef
27.
Leen E, Moug SJ, Horgan P (2004) Potential impact and utilization of ultrasound contrast media. Eur Radiol Suppl 14(Suppl 8):P16–P24
28.
Chiu WC, Cushing BM, Rodriguez A et al (1997) Abdominal injuries without hemoperitoneum: a potential limitation of focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST). J Trauma 42:617–625PubMedCrossRef
29.
Shanmuganathan K, Mirvis SE, Sherbourne CD et al (1999) Hemoperitoneum as the sole indicator of abdominal visceral injuries: a potential limitation of screening abdominal US for trauma. Radiology 212:423–430PubMedCrossRef
30.
Thorelius L (2007) Emergency real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for detection of solid organ injuries. Eur Radiol Suppl 17(Suppl 6):F107–F112CrossRef
31.
Catalano O, Aiani L, Barozzi L et al (2009) CEUS in abdominal trauma: multi-center study. Abdom Imaging 34(2):225–234PubMedCrossRef
32.
Afaq A, Harvey C, Aldin Z et al (2012) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in abdominal trauma. Eur J Emerg Med 19(3):140–145PubMedCrossRef
33.
Manetta R, Pistoia ML, Bultrini C et al (2009) Ultrasound enhanced with sulphur-hexafluoride-filled microbubbles agent (SonoVue) in the follow-up of mild liver and spleen trauma. [Article in English, Italian]. Radiol Med 114(5):771–779PubMedCrossRef
34.
Piscaglia F, Nolsøe C, Dietrich CF et al (2012) The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical practice of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall Med 33(1):33–59PubMedCrossRef
35.
Valentino M, Serra C, Zironi G et al (2006) Emergency contrast-enhanced sonography for detection of solid organ injuries. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1361–1367PubMedCrossRef
36.
Catalano O, Cusati B, Nunziata A et al (2006) Active abdominal bleeding: contrast-enhanced sonography. Abdom Imaging 31:9–16PubMedCrossRef
37.
Catalano O, Sandomenico F, Raso MM et al (2005) Real-time, contrast-enhanced sonography: a new tool for detecting active bleeding. J Trauma 59:933–939PubMedCrossRef
38.
Yegiyants S, Abou-Lahoud G, Taylor E (2006) The management of blunt abdominal trauma patients with computed tomography scan findings of free peritoneal fluid and no evidence of solid organ injury. Am Surg 72(10):943–946PubMed
39.
Brenchley J, Walker A, Sloan JP et al (2006) Evaluation of focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) by UK emergency physicians. Emerg Med J 23(6):446–448PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
Cokkinos D, Antypa E, Stefanidis K et al (2012) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for imaging blunt abdominal trauma-indications, description of the technique and imaging review. Ultraschall Med 33(1):60–67PubMedCrossRef
41.
Valentino M, Ansaloni L, Catena F et al (2009) Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in blunt abdominal trauma: considerations after 5 years of experience. Radiol Med 114(7):1080–1093PubMedCrossRef
42.
Dormagen J, Meyerdierks O, Gaarder C et al (2011) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the injured spleen after embolization-comparison with computed tomography. Ultraschall Med 32(5):485–491PubMedCrossRef
43.
Wittenberg AF, Tobias T, Rzeszotarski M et al (2006) Sonography of the acute scrotum: the four T’s of testicular imaging. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 35(1):12–21PubMedCrossRef
44.
Moschouris H, Stamatiou K, Lampropoulou E et al (2009) Imaging of the acute scrotum: is there a place for contrast-enhanced ultrasonography? Int Braz J Urol 35(6):692–705PubMedCrossRef
45.
Alcantra AL, Sethi Y (1998) Imaging of testicular torsion and epididymitis/orchitis: diagnosis and pitfalls. Emerg Radiol 5:394–402CrossRef
46.
Sriprasad S, Kooiman GG, Muir GH et al (2001) Acute segmental testicular infarction: differentiation from tumour using high frequency colour Doppler ultrasound. Br J Radiol 74:965–967PubMedCrossRef
47.
Ledwige ME, Lee DK, Winter TC 3rd et al (2002) Sonographic diagnosis of superior hemispheric testicular infarction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:775–776CrossRef
48.
Valentino M, Bertolotto M, Derchi L et al (2011) Role of contrast enhanced ultrasound in acute scrotal diseases. Eur Radiol 21(9):1831–1840PubMedCrossRef
49.
Herbener TE (1996) Ultrasound in the assessment of the acute scrotum. J Clin Ultrasound 24:405–421PubMedCrossRef
50.
Bilagi P, Sriprasad S, Clarke JL et al (2007) Clinical and ultrasound features of segmental testicular infarction: 6-year experience from a single centre. Eur Radiol 17:2810–2818PubMedCrossRef
51.
Bertolotto M, Derchi LE, Sidhu PS et al (2011) Acute segmental testicular infarction at contrast-enhanced ultrasound: early features and changes during follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:834–841PubMedCrossRef
52.
Gorman B, Caroll BA (2005) The scrotum. In: Rumack CM, Wilson SR, Charboneau JW (eds) Diagnostic ultrasound, 3rd edn. Elsevier Mosby, St Louis, pp 849–888
53.
Burks DD, Markey BJ, Burkhard TK et al (1990) Suspected testicular torsion and ischemia: evaluation with color Doppler sonography. Radiology 175:815–821PubMedCrossRef
54.
Muttarak M, Lojanapiwat B (2005) The painful scrotum: an ultrasonographical approach to diagnosis. Singap Med J 46:327–352
55.
Clevert DA, Horng A, Jung EM et al (2009) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus conventional ultrasound and MS-CT in the diagnosis of abdominal aortic dissection. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 43:129–139PubMed
56.
Clevert DA, Sommer WH, Zengel P et al (2011) Imaging of carotid arterial diseases with contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Eur J Radiol 80(1):68–76PubMedCrossRef
57.
Catalano O, Lobianco R, Cusati B et al (2005) Contrast-enhanced sonography for diagnosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184(2):423–427PubMedCrossRef
58.
Martegani A, Aiani L, Borghi C (2004) The use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in large vessels. Eur Radiol (Suppl 8): P73-P78
59.
Clevert DA, Rupp N, Reiser M et al (2005) Improved diagnosis of vascular dissection by ultrasound B-flow: a comparison with color-coded Doppler and power Doppler sonography. Eur Radiol 2005(15):342–347CrossRef
60.
Clevert DA, Stickel M, Johnson T et al (2007) Imaging of aortic abnormalities with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. A pictorial comparison with CT. Eur Radiol 17:2991–3000PubMedCrossRef
61.
Clevert DA, Stickel M, Kopp R et al (2008) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus CT and operative findings in evaluation of renal vein aneurysm with AV fistula. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 39:147–154PubMed
62.
Bhatia M, Platon A, Khabiri E et al (2010) Contrast enhanced ultrasonography versus MR angiography in aortocaval fistula: case report. Abdom Imaging 35(3):376–380PubMedCrossRef
63.
Clevert DA, Sommer WH, Helck A et al (2011) Duplex and contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in evaluation of in-stent restenosis after carotid stenting. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 48(1):199–208PubMed
64.
Beaton C, Cochlin D, Kumar N (2010) Contrast enhanced ultrasound should be the initial radiological investigation to characterise focal liver lesions. Eur J Surg Oncol 36(1):43–46PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound performed under urgent conditions. Indications, review of the technique, clinical examples and limitations
Authors
Demosthenes D. Cokkinos
Eleni Antypa
Ioannis Kalogeropoulos
Dimitrios Tomais
Emmanuel Ismailos
Ioannis Matsiras
Stylianos Benakis
Ploutarchos N. Piperopoulos
Publication date
01-04-2013
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Insights into Imaging / Issue 2/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-012-0209-5

Other articles of this Issue 2/2013

Insights into Imaging 2/2013 Go to the issue

Statement

ESR statement on the stepwise development of imaging biomarkers

Pictorial Review

Magnetic resonance imaging in the prenatal diagnosis of neural tube defects

Original Article

The role of magnetic resonance imaging in assessing residual disease and pathologic complete response in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review

Original Article

Bilateral analysis of the cross-sectional area of the internal mammary arteries and veins in patients with and without breast cancer on breast magnetic resonance imaging

Reply: Letter to the Editor

Reply to: A few thoughts on “Interventional radiology in the management of benign biliary stenoses, biliary leaks and fistulas: a pictorial review”

Statement

Patient communication, confidentiality and consent: radiology policy and practice in Europe. A survey by the European Society of Radiology