Infusion versus bolus contrast echocardiography

A multicenter, open- label, crossover trial

Neil J. Weissman, Mylan C. Cohen, Terrence C. Hack, Linda Gillam, Jerald L. Cohen, Dalane W. Kitzman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

43 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: In current practice, contrast echocardiography is performed with single or multiple bolus injections, which often result in an uncontrolled period of attenuation followed by transient left ventricular opacification (LVO). Because a 'slow bolus' appears to reduce attenuation and prolong LVO, we hypothesized that a controlled infusion of contrast might provide a more uniform contrast effect with less attenuation and longer contrast duration. Methods and Results: We sought to test the hypothesis by using an infusion of contrast (DEFINITY [perflutren], The DuPont Pharmaceuticals Co, Medical Imaging, North Billerica, Mass) that is stable when diluted in saline in a randomized, multicenter, controlled, crossover trial. Sixty-four patients with poor noncontrast images were recruited at 3 centers and randomly assigned to 2 single 'slow' bolus injections of contrast (10 μL/kg each over a period of 30 to 60 seconds) or an infusion (1.3 mL in 50 mL normal saline initially at 4.0 mL/min) of contrast. Patients then returned within 24 to 72 hours for the alternative form of contrast delivery. Three independent experienced echocardiographers viewed 30 seconds of videotape for all optimal baseline and optimal contrast images to score LVO and qualitatively assessed endocardial border evaluability. The duration of adequate LVO then was independently assessed by review of the entire videotape. Three independent sonographers traced single-frame, digitally captured images to measure the length of the contiguous endocardial border visualized. Both bobs and infusion administration demonstrated improved LVO (>90% by all blinded readers, P < .01) and endocardial border visualized (mean increase of 1.8 to 4.7 cm at both end-diastole and end-systole, all P < .05) as compared with baseline images. However, contrast infusion resulted in a longer duration of LVO (range of mean durations for each reader, 158 to 174 seconds longer, P < .05) and a shorter duration of attenuation (18 to 54 seconds, P < .05) compared with either bolus injection. There were no severe adverse events with contrast infusion. Conclusions: Contrast echocardiography delivered as an infusion optimizes the contrast effect by decreasing the attenuation period, extending the LVO duration, and providing a uniform contrast effect that may be useful in obtaining multiple echocardiographic views, stress echocardiography, myocardial perfusion imaging, and applications in which blood flow must be quantified.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)399-404
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Heart Journal
Volume139
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Cross-Over Studies
Echocardiography
Videotape Recording
perflutren
Injections
Stress Echocardiography
Myocardial Perfusion Imaging
Diastole
Systole
Diagnostic Imaging
Pharmaceutical Preparations

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Weissman, Neil J. ; Cohen, Mylan C. ; Hack, Terrence C. ; Gillam, Linda ; Cohen, Jerald L. ; Kitzman, Dalane W. / Infusion versus bolus contrast echocardiography : A multicenter, open- label, crossover trial. In: American Heart Journal. 2000 ; Vol. 139, No. 3. pp. 399-404.
@article{e5988c93a0a04ebfb8d8029c0dbd640d,
title = "Infusion versus bolus contrast echocardiography: A multicenter, open- label, crossover trial",
abstract = "Background: In current practice, contrast echocardiography is performed with single or multiple bolus injections, which often result in an uncontrolled period of attenuation followed by transient left ventricular opacification (LVO). Because a 'slow bolus' appears to reduce attenuation and prolong LVO, we hypothesized that a controlled infusion of contrast might provide a more uniform contrast effect with less attenuation and longer contrast duration. Methods and Results: We sought to test the hypothesis by using an infusion of contrast (DEFINITY [perflutren], The DuPont Pharmaceuticals Co, Medical Imaging, North Billerica, Mass) that is stable when diluted in saline in a randomized, multicenter, controlled, crossover trial. Sixty-four patients with poor noncontrast images were recruited at 3 centers and randomly assigned to 2 single 'slow' bolus injections of contrast (10 μL/kg each over a period of 30 to 60 seconds) or an infusion (1.3 mL in 50 mL normal saline initially at 4.0 mL/min) of contrast. Patients then returned within 24 to 72 hours for the alternative form of contrast delivery. Three independent experienced echocardiographers viewed 30 seconds of videotape for all optimal baseline and optimal contrast images to score LVO and qualitatively assessed endocardial border evaluability. The duration of adequate LVO then was independently assessed by review of the entire videotape. Three independent sonographers traced single-frame, digitally captured images to measure the length of the contiguous endocardial border visualized. Both bobs and infusion administration demonstrated improved LVO (>90{\%} by all blinded readers, P < .01) and endocardial border visualized (mean increase of 1.8 to 4.7 cm at both end-diastole and end-systole, all P < .05) as compared with baseline images. However, contrast infusion resulted in a longer duration of LVO (range of mean durations for each reader, 158 to 174 seconds longer, P < .05) and a shorter duration of attenuation (18 to 54 seconds, P < .05) compared with either bolus injection. There were no severe adverse events with contrast infusion. Conclusions: Contrast echocardiography delivered as an infusion optimizes the contrast effect by decreasing the attenuation period, extending the LVO duration, and providing a uniform contrast effect that may be useful in obtaining multiple echocardiographic views, stress echocardiography, myocardial perfusion imaging, and applications in which blood flow must be quantified.",
author = "Weissman, {Neil J.} and Cohen, {Mylan C.} and Hack, {Terrence C.} and Linda Gillam and Cohen, {Jerald L.} and Kitzman, {Dalane W.}",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0002-8703(00)90082-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "139",
pages = "399--404",
journal = "American Heart Journal",
issn = "0002-8703",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "3",

}

Infusion versus bolus contrast echocardiography : A multicenter, open- label, crossover trial. / Weissman, Neil J.; Cohen, Mylan C.; Hack, Terrence C.; Gillam, Linda; Cohen, Jerald L.; Kitzman, Dalane W.

In: American Heart Journal, Vol. 139, No. 3, 01.01.2000, p. 399-404.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Infusion versus bolus contrast echocardiography

T2 - A multicenter, open- label, crossover trial

AU - Weissman, Neil J.

AU - Cohen, Mylan C.

AU - Hack, Terrence C.

AU - Gillam, Linda

AU - Cohen, Jerald L.

AU - Kitzman, Dalane W.

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

N2 - Background: In current practice, contrast echocardiography is performed with single or multiple bolus injections, which often result in an uncontrolled period of attenuation followed by transient left ventricular opacification (LVO). Because a 'slow bolus' appears to reduce attenuation and prolong LVO, we hypothesized that a controlled infusion of contrast might provide a more uniform contrast effect with less attenuation and longer contrast duration. Methods and Results: We sought to test the hypothesis by using an infusion of contrast (DEFINITY [perflutren], The DuPont Pharmaceuticals Co, Medical Imaging, North Billerica, Mass) that is stable when diluted in saline in a randomized, multicenter, controlled, crossover trial. Sixty-four patients with poor noncontrast images were recruited at 3 centers and randomly assigned to 2 single 'slow' bolus injections of contrast (10 μL/kg each over a period of 30 to 60 seconds) or an infusion (1.3 mL in 50 mL normal saline initially at 4.0 mL/min) of contrast. Patients then returned within 24 to 72 hours for the alternative form of contrast delivery. Three independent experienced echocardiographers viewed 30 seconds of videotape for all optimal baseline and optimal contrast images to score LVO and qualitatively assessed endocardial border evaluability. The duration of adequate LVO then was independently assessed by review of the entire videotape. Three independent sonographers traced single-frame, digitally captured images to measure the length of the contiguous endocardial border visualized. Both bobs and infusion administration demonstrated improved LVO (>90% by all blinded readers, P < .01) and endocardial border visualized (mean increase of 1.8 to 4.7 cm at both end-diastole and end-systole, all P < .05) as compared with baseline images. However, contrast infusion resulted in a longer duration of LVO (range of mean durations for each reader, 158 to 174 seconds longer, P < .05) and a shorter duration of attenuation (18 to 54 seconds, P < .05) compared with either bolus injection. There were no severe adverse events with contrast infusion. Conclusions: Contrast echocardiography delivered as an infusion optimizes the contrast effect by decreasing the attenuation period, extending the LVO duration, and providing a uniform contrast effect that may be useful in obtaining multiple echocardiographic views, stress echocardiography, myocardial perfusion imaging, and applications in which blood flow must be quantified.

AB - Background: In current practice, contrast echocardiography is performed with single or multiple bolus injections, which often result in an uncontrolled period of attenuation followed by transient left ventricular opacification (LVO). Because a 'slow bolus' appears to reduce attenuation and prolong LVO, we hypothesized that a controlled infusion of contrast might provide a more uniform contrast effect with less attenuation and longer contrast duration. Methods and Results: We sought to test the hypothesis by using an infusion of contrast (DEFINITY [perflutren], The DuPont Pharmaceuticals Co, Medical Imaging, North Billerica, Mass) that is stable when diluted in saline in a randomized, multicenter, controlled, crossover trial. Sixty-four patients with poor noncontrast images were recruited at 3 centers and randomly assigned to 2 single 'slow' bolus injections of contrast (10 μL/kg each over a period of 30 to 60 seconds) or an infusion (1.3 mL in 50 mL normal saline initially at 4.0 mL/min) of contrast. Patients then returned within 24 to 72 hours for the alternative form of contrast delivery. Three independent experienced echocardiographers viewed 30 seconds of videotape for all optimal baseline and optimal contrast images to score LVO and qualitatively assessed endocardial border evaluability. The duration of adequate LVO then was independently assessed by review of the entire videotape. Three independent sonographers traced single-frame, digitally captured images to measure the length of the contiguous endocardial border visualized. Both bobs and infusion administration demonstrated improved LVO (>90% by all blinded readers, P < .01) and endocardial border visualized (mean increase of 1.8 to 4.7 cm at both end-diastole and end-systole, all P < .05) as compared with baseline images. However, contrast infusion resulted in a longer duration of LVO (range of mean durations for each reader, 158 to 174 seconds longer, P < .05) and a shorter duration of attenuation (18 to 54 seconds, P < .05) compared with either bolus injection. There were no severe adverse events with contrast infusion. Conclusions: Contrast echocardiography delivered as an infusion optimizes the contrast effect by decreasing the attenuation period, extending the LVO duration, and providing a uniform contrast effect that may be useful in obtaining multiple echocardiographic views, stress echocardiography, myocardial perfusion imaging, and applications in which blood flow must be quantified.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034015765&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034015765&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0002-8703(00)90082-6

DO - 10.1016/S0002-8703(00)90082-6

M3 - Article

VL - 139

SP - 399

EP - 404

JO - American Heart Journal

JF - American Heart Journal

SN - 0002-8703

IS - 3

ER -