Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Low mechanical index contrast mode versus high mechanical index contrast mode: which is a more sensitive method for detecting Sonazoid microbubbles in the liver of normal subjects?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Medical Ultrasonics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Using the low mechanical index (MI) contrast mode and the high MI contrast mode of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography, we evaluated which method is more sensitive for detecting Sonazoid microbubbles in the liver of normal subjects.

Methods

Thirteen normal subjects received an intravenous bolus injection of 0.2 mL of Sonazoid. We defined the intensity difference as the intensity post-injection minus the intensity pre-injection. We evaluated the intensity difference at the portal vein using both the low MI (0.21–0.23) and the high MI (0.7–1.2) at 1 min, at every 10 min between 10 to 60 min, and at every 30 min between 60 to 300 min post-injection. The intensity difference at the liver parenchyma was also evaluated at eight points (1, 10, 30, 60, 120, 180, 240, and 300 min) using the low MI and at three points (1, 10, and 300 min) using the high MI.

Results

The intensity differences at the portal vein measured using high MI were significantly higher than those measured using the low MI at each point between 1 and 240 min (P < 0.01) and at 270 min post-injection (P < 0.05). The intensity differences at the liver parenchyma measured using the high MI were also significantly higher than those measured using the low MI at each time point (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

Compared with the low MI, the high MI is more sensitive for detecting Sonazoid microbubbles in the liver of normal subjects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kindberg GM, Tolleshaug H, Roos N, et al. Hepatic clearance of Sonazoid perfluorobutane microbubbles by Kupffer cells doses not reduce the ability of liver to phagocytose or degrade albumin microspheres. Cell Tissue Res. 2003;312:49–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Watanabe R, Matsumura M, Chen CJ, et al. Characterization of tumor imaging with microbubble-based ultrasound contrast agent, Sonazoid, in rabbit liver. Biol Pharm Bull. 2005;28:972–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Toft KG, Hustvedt SO, Hals PA, et al. Disposition of perfluorobutane in rats after intravenous injection of Sonazoid. Ultrasound Med Blol. 2006;32:107–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Watanabe R, Matsumura M, Munemasa T, et al. Mechanism of hepatic parenchyma-specific contrast of microbubble-based contrast agent for ultrasonography: microscopic studies in rat liver. Invest Radiol. 2007;42:643–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sontum PC. Physicochemical characteristics of Sonazoid, a new contrast agent for ultrasound imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2008;34:824–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Numata K, Luo W, Morimoto M, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Radiol. 2010;2:68–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Tanaka H, Iijima H, Higashiura A, et al. New malignant grading system for hepatocellular carcinoma using the Sonazoid contrast agent for ultrasonography. J Gastroenterol. 2014;49:755–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kong WT, Wang WP, Huang BJ, et al. Value of wash-in and wash-out time in the diagnosis between hepatocellular carcinoma and other hepatic nodules with similar vascular pattern on contrast-enhanced ultrasound. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;29:576–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Alzaraa A, Gravante G, Chung WY, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative assessment of liver lesions. Hepatol Res. 2013;43:809–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yanagisawa K, Moriyasu F, Miyahara T, et al. Phagocytosis of ultrasound contrast agent microbubbles by Kupffer cells. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2007;33:318–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Moriyasu F, Itoh K. Efficacy of perflubutane microbubble-enhanced ultrasound in the characterization and detection of focal liver lesions: phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:86–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Numata K, Morimoto M, Ogura T, et al. Ablation therapy guided by contrast-enhanced sonography with Sonazoid for hepatocellular carcinoma lesions not detected by conventional sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:395–406.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Luo W, Numata K, Kondo M, et al. Sonazoid-enhanced ultrasonography for evaluation of the enhancement patterns of focal liver tumors in the late phase by intermittent imaging with a high mechanical index. J Ultrasound Med. 2009;28:439–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Luo W, Numata K, Morimoto M, et al. Clinical utility of contrast-enhanced three-dimensional ultrasound imaging with Sonazoid: findings on hepatocellular carcinoma lesions. Eur J Radiol. 2009;72:425–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Takizawa K, Numata K, Morimoto M, et al. Use of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with a perflubutane-based contrast agent performed one day after transarterial chemoembolization for the early assessment of residual viable hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:1471–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Numata K, Fukuda H, Miwa H, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography findings using a perflubutane-based contrast agent in patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:95–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Numata K, Tanaka K, Kida T, et al. Hemodynamic changes in hepatic artery after glucose ingestion in healthy subjects and patients with cirrhosis. J Clinical Ultrasound. 1998;26:137–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Maruyama H, Takahashi M, Shimada T, et al. Pretreatment microbubble-induced enhancement in hepatocellular carcinoma predicts intrahepatic distant recurrence after radiofrequency ablation. AJR. 2013;200:570–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sasaki S, Iijima H, Moriyasu F, et al. Definition of contrast enhancement phases of the liver using a perfluoro-based microbubble agent, perflubutane microbubbles. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009;35:1819–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Skyba DM, Price RJ, Linka AZ, et al. Direct in vivo visualization of intravascular destruction of microbubbles by ultrasound and its local effects on tissue. Ciculation. 1998;98:290–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver-update 2012: a WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultrasound in Med Biol. 2013;39:187–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gastroenterological Center, Yokohama City University Medical Center, 4-57 Urafune-cho, Minami-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 232-0024, Japan

    Hiromi Nihonmatsu, Kazushi Numata, Hiroyuki Fukuda & Katsuaki Tanaka

  2. Department of Biostatistics, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 236-0004, Japan

    Mari Ooba

  3. Division of Gastroenterology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 232-0024, Japan

    Shin Maeda

Authors
  1. Hiromi Nihonmatsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kazushi Numata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroyuki Fukuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katsuaki Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mari Ooba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shin Maeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kazushi Numata.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Human rights statement and informed consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 and later versions. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects for being included in the study.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nihonmatsu, H., Numata, K., Fukuda, H. et al. Low mechanical index contrast mode versus high mechanical index contrast mode: which is a more sensitive method for detecting Sonazoid microbubbles in the liver of normal subjects?. J Med Ultrasonics 43, 211–217 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-015-0685-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-015-0685-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation