Imaging microvascular flow is of diagnostic value for a wide range of diseases including cancer, inflammation, and cardiovascular disease. The introduction of microbubbles as ultrasound contrast agents offers significant signal enhancement to the otherwise weakly scattered signal from blood in the circulation. Microbubbles provide maximum impedance mismatch, but are not linear scatterers. Their complex response to ultrasound has generated research on both their behaviour and their scattered-signal processing. Nearly 20 years ago signal processing started with simple spectral filtering of harmonics showing contrast-enhanced images. More recent pulse encoding techniques have achieved good cancellation of tissue echoes. The good quality contrast-only images enabled ultrasound contrast-imaging applications to be established in microvascular measurements in the liver and the myocardium. The field promises to advance the quantification of microvascular flow kinetics.
HoskinsP. R.‘Haemodynamics and blood flow measured using ultrasound.’J. Eng. Med. (in press, 2009)
2.
De JongN.Ten CateF.J.LanceeC. T.RoelandtJ. R. T. C.BomN.‘Principles and recent developments in ultrasound contrast agents.’Ultrasonics29 (1991): 324–330
QuaiaE.‘Microbubble ultrasound contrast agents: An update.’Eur. Radiol.17 (2007): 1995–2008
5.
LindnerJ. R.KaulS.‘Insights into the assessment of myocardial perfusion offered by different cardiac imaging modalities.’J. Nucl. Cardiol.2 (1995): 446–460
6.
SawadaS. G.‘Positron emission tomography for assessment of viability.’Curr. Opin. Cardiol.21 (2006): 464–468
7.
MoritaK.KatohC.YoshinagaK.NoriyasuK.MabuchiM.TsukamotoT.KageyamaH.ShigaT.KugeY.TamakiN.‘Quantitative analysis of myocardial glucose utilization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction by means of 18F—FDG dynamic positron tomography and three—compartment analysis.’Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging32 (2005): 806–812
8.
JadvarH.StraussH. W.SegallG. M.‘SPECT and PET in the evaluation of coronary artery disease.’Radiographics19 (1999): 915–926
9.
JayaweeraA. R.EdwardsN.GlasheenW. P.VillanuevaF. S.AbbottR. D.KaulS.‘In vivo myocardial kinetics of air-filled albumin microbubbles during myocardial contrast echocardiography. Comparison with radiolabeled red blood cells.’Circ. Res.74 (1994): 1157–1165
10.
LindnerJ. R.SongJ.JayaweeraA. R.SklenarJ.KaulS.‘Microvascular rheology of definity microbubbles after intra-arterial and intravenous administration.’J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogram15 (2002): 396–403
11.
EpsteinP. S.PlessetM. S.‘On the stability of gas bubbles in liquid-gas solutions.’J. Chem. Phys.18 (1950): 1505–1509
De JongN.CornetR.LanceeC. T.‘Higher harmonics of vibrating gas-filled microspheres. Part two: Measurements.’Ultrasonics32 (1994): 455–459
15.
ChangP. H.ShungK. K.LeveneH. B.‘Quantitative measurements of second harmonic doppler using ultrasound contrast agents.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.22 (1996): 1205–1214
16.
KrishnaP. D.NewhouseV. L.‘Second harmonic characteristics of the ultrasound contrast agents Albunex and FSO69.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.23 (1997): 453–459
17.
MarshJ. N.HughesM. S.HallC. S.LewisS. H.TrousilR. L.BrandenburgerG. H.LeveneH.MillerJ. G.‘Frequency and concentration dependence of the backscatter coefficient of the ultrasound contrast agent Albunex.’J. Ac. Soc. Am.104 (1998): 1654–1666
18.
FrinkingP. J. A.de JongN.CéspedesE.I.‘Scattering properties of encapsulated gas bubbles at high ultrasound pressures.’J. Ac. Soc. Am.105 (1999): 1989–1996
19.
GorceJ. M.ArditiM.SchneiderM.‘Influence of bubble size distribution on the echogenicity of ultrasound contrast agents. A study of Sonovue®.’Invest Radiol.35 (2000): 661–671
20.
ShiW. T.ForsbergF.‘Ultrasonic characterization of the nonlinear properties of contrast microbubbles.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.26 (2000): 93–104
SborosV.RamnarineK. V.MoranC. M.PyeS. D.McDickenW. N.‘Understanding the limitations of ultrasonic backscatter measurements from microbubble populations.’Phys. MedBiol.47 (2002): 4287–4299
23.
SborosV.MacDonaldC. A.PyeS. D.MoranC. M.GomatamJ.McDickenW. N.‘The dependence of ultrasound contrast agents backscatter on acoustic pressure: Theory versus experiment.’Ultrasonics40 (2002): 579–583
SborosV.MoranC. M.PyeS. D.McDickenW. N.‘An in vitro study of a microbubble contrast imaging agent using a clinical ultrasound imaging system.’Phys. Med. Biol.49 (2004): 159–173
26.
TangM.-X.EckersleyR. J.NobleJ. A.‘Pressure-dependent attenuation with microbubbles at low mechanical.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.31 (2005): 377–384
27.
SarkarK.ShiW. T.ChatterjeeD.ForsbergF.‘Characterization of ultrasound contrast microbubbles using in vitro experiments and viscous and viscoelastic interface models for encapsulation.’J. Ac. Soc. Am.118 (2005): 539–550
28.
TangM.-X.EckersleyR. J.‘Frequency and pressure dependent attenuation and scattering by microbubbles.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.33 (2007): 164–168
29.
ChomasJ. E.DaytonP.MayD.FerraraK.‘Threshold of fragmentation for ultrasonic contrast agents.’J. Biomed. Opt.6 (2001): 141–150
30.
MayD. J.AllenJ. S.FerraraK.‘Dynamics and fragmentation of thick-shelled microbubbles.’IEEE Trans. UFFC49 (2002): 1400–1410
31.
BordenM. A.LongoM. L.‘Dissolution behavior of lipid monolayer-coated, air-filled microbubbles: Effect of lipid hydrophobic chain length.’Langmuir18 (2002): 9225–9233
32.
BordenM. A.PuG.RunnerG. J.LongoM. L.‘Surface phase behavior and microstructure of lipid/PEG-emulsifier monolayer-coated microbubbles.’Coll. Surf. B35 (2004): 209–223
33.
BlochS. H.WanM.DaytonP. A.FerraraK. W.‘Optical observation of lipid- and polymer-shelled ultrasound microbubble contrast agents.’App. Phys. Lett.84 (2004): 631–633
BordenM. A.KruseD. E.CaskeyC. F.ZhaoS.DaytonP. A.FerraraK. W.‘Influence of lipid shell physicochemical properties on ultrasound-induced microbubble destruction.’IEEE Trans., UFFC52 (2005): 1992–2002
36.
SborosV.GlynosE.PyeS. D.MoranC. M.ButlerM.RossJ.ShortR.McDickenW. N.KoutsosV.‘Nano-interrogation of ultrasonic contrast agent microbubbles using atomic force microscopy.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.32 (2006): 579–585
37.
SborosV.GlynosE.PyeS. D.MoranC. M.ButlerM.RossJ.McDickenW. N.KoutsosV.‘Nanomechanical probing of microbubbles using the atomic force microscope.’Ultrasonics46 (2007): 349–354
38.
WeiK.JayaweeraA. R.FiroozanS.LinkaA.SkybaD. M.KaulS.‘Quantification of myocardial blood flow with ultrasound-induced destruction of microbubbles administered as a constant venous infusion.’Circulation97 (1998): 473–483
39.
AlbrechtT.OldenburgA.HohmannJ.SkrokJ.HoffmannC. W.SchettlerS.WolfK.-J.‘Imaging of liver metastases with contrast-specific low-MI real-time ultrasound and SonoVue.’Eur. Radiol.13 (2003): N79-N86.
40.
SborosV.‘Response of contrast agents to ultrasound.’Adv. Drug Delivery Rev.60 (2008): 1117–1136
41.
StrideE. P.CoussiosC. C.‘Cavitation and contrast: The use of bubbles in utrasound imaging and therapy.’Proc. IMechE, Part H: J. Engineering in Medicine (2010), 224(H2), 171–192. DOI: 10.1243/09544119JEIM622.
42.
PadialL. R.ChenM. H.VuilleC.GuerreroJ. L.WeymanA. E.PicardM. H.‘Pulsatile pressure affects the disappearance of echocardiographic contrast agents.’J. Am. Soc. Echocard.8 (1995): 285–292
43.
SborosV.MoranC. M.AndersonT.McDickenW. N.‘An in vitro comparison of ultrasonic contrast agents in solutions with varying air levels.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.26 (2000): 807–818
44.
AdamD.SapunarM.BurlaE.‘On the relationship between encapsulated ultrasound contrast agent and pressure.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.31 (2005): 673–686
PrenticeP.CuschieriA.DholakiaK.PrausnitzM.CampbellP.‘Membrane disruption by optically controlled microbubble cavitation.’Nat. Phys.10 (2005): 107–110
47.
CaskeyC. F.StiegerS. M.QinS.DaytonP. A.FerraraK. W.‘Direct observations of ultrasound microbubble contrast agent interaction with the microvessel wall.’J. Ac. Soc. Am.122 (2007): 1191–1200
48.
GarbinV.CojocD.FerrariE.Di FabrizioE.OverveldeM. L. J.van der MeerS. M.de JongN.LohseD.VersluisM.‘Changes in microbubble dynamics near a boundary revealed by combined optical micromanipulation and high-speed imaging.’App. Phys. Lett.90 (2007): 114103–1
49.
KlibanovA. L.RascheP. T.HughesM. S.WojdylaJ. K.GalenK. P.WibleJ. H.BrandenburgerG. H.‘Detection of individual microbubbles of an ultrasound contrast agent: Fundamental and pulse inversion imaging.’Acad. Radiol.9 (2002): S279-S281.
50.
KlibanovA. L.RascheP. T.HughesM. S.WojdylaJ. K.GalenK. P.WibleJ. H.BrandenburgerG. H.‘Detection of individual microbubbles of ultrasound contrast agents. Imaging of free-floating and targeted bubbles.’Invest. Radiol.39 (2004): 187–195
51.
GuanJ.MatulaT. J.AverkiouM.‘Imaging the destruction of individual ultrasound contrast microbubbles with diagnostic ultrasound.’ARLO5 (2004): 165–169
52.
SborosV.PyeS. D.MacDonaldC. A.GomatamJ.MoranC. M.McDickenW. N.‘Absolute measurement of ultrasonic backscatter from single microbubbles.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.31 (2005): 1063–1072
53.
BiagiE.BreschiL.MasottiL.‘Transient subharmonic and ultraharmonic acoustic emission during dissolution of free gas bubbles.’IEEE Trans. UFFC52 (2005): 1048–1054
54.
BlochS.ShortR. E.FerraraK. W.WisnerE. R.‘The effect of size on the acoustic response of polymer-shelled contrast agents.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.31 (2005): 439–444
BecherH.BurnsP. N.Handbook of contrast echocardiography (Springer2000)
60.
AndreM. P.SteinbachG.MattreyR. F.‘Enhancement of the echogenicity of flowing blood by the contrast agent perflubron.’Invest. Radiol.28 (1993): 502–506
61.
BouakazA.FrigstadS.Ten CateF. J.de JongN.‘Super harmonic imaging: A new imaging technique for improved contrast detection.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.28 (2002): 59–68
62.
BurnsP. N.‘Instrumentation for contrast echocardiography.’Echocardiography19 (2002): 241–258
63.
BurnsP. N.‘Harmonic imaging with ultrasound contrast agents.’Clin. Radiol.51 (1996): 50–55
64.
De JongN.FrinkingP. J. A.BouakazA.Ten CateF. J.‘Detection procedures of ultrasound contrast agents.’Ultrasonics38 (2000): 87–92
65.
ShankarP. M.KrishnaP. D.NewhouseV. L.‘Advantages of subharmonic over second harmonic backscatter for contrast-to-tissue echo enhancement.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.24 (1998): 395–399
66.
ForsbergF.ShiW. T.GoldbergB. B.‘Subharmonic imaging of contrast agents.’Ultrasonics38 (2000): 93–98
Brock-FisherA. G.PolandM.RafterP. ‘Means for increasing sensitivity in nonlinear ultrasound imaging systems.’ US patent 5577505, 26 November 1996.
73.
Mor-AviV.CaianiE. G.CollinsK. A.KorcarzC. E.BednarzJ. E.LangR. M.‘Combined assessment of myocardial perfusion and regional left ventricular function by analysis of contrast-enhanced power modulation images.’Circulation104 (2001): 352–357
74.
HwangJ. J.Hope SimpsonD. ‘Two pulse technique for ultrasonic imaging.’ US patent 5951478, 14 September 1999.
75.
EckersleyR. J.ChinC. T.BurnsP. N.‘Optimising phase and amplitude modulation schemes for imaging microbubble contrast agents at low acoustic power.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.31 (2005): 213–219
76.
BorsboomJ. M. G.BouakazA.de JongN.‘Pulse subtraction time delay imaging method for ultrasound contrast agent detection.’IEEE Trans. UFFC56 (2009): 1151–1158
77.
BouakazA.VersluisM.BorsboomJ.de JongN.‘Radial modulation of microbubbles for ultrasound contrast imaging.’IEEE Trans. UFFC54 (2007): 2283–2290
78.
Hope-SimpsonD.ChinC. T.BurnsP. N.‘Pulse inversion doppler: A new method for detecting nonlinear echoes from microbubble contrast agents.’IEEE Trans. UFFC46 (1999): 372–382
79.
TangM.-X.EckersleyR. J.‘Nonlinear propagation of ultrasound through microbubble contrast agents and implications for imaging.’IEEE Trans. UFFC53 (2006): 2406–2415
SunY.ZhaoS.DaytonP. A.FerraraK. W.‘Observation of contrast agent response to chirp insonation with a simultaneous optical-acoustical system.’IEEE Trans. UFFC53 (2006): 1130–1137
85.
ChettyK.HajnalJ. V.EckersleyR. J.‘Investigating the nonlinear microbubble response to chirp encoded, multipulse sequences.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.32 (2006): 1887–1895
86.
SimpsonD. H.BurnsP. N.AverkiouM. A.‘Techniques for perfusion imaging with microbubble contrast agents.’IEEE Trans. UFFC48 (2001): 1483–1494
87.
PorterT. R.XieF.‘Transient myocardial contrast after initial exposure to diagnostic ultrasound pressures with minute doses of intravenously injected microbubbles.’Circulation92 (1995): 2391–2395
LeavensC.WilliamsR.FosterF. S.BurnsP. N.SherarM. D.‘Golay pulse encoding for microbubble contrast imaging in ultrasound.’IEEE Trans. UFFC54 (2007): 2082–2090
90.
GuanJ.MatulaT. J.AverkiouM.‘Imaging the destruction of individual ultrasound contrast microbubbles with diagnostic ultrasound.’ARLO5 (2004): 165–169
91.
FrinkingP. J. A.CespedesE. I.KirkhornJ.TorpH. G.de JongN.‘A new ultrasound contrast imaging approach based on the combination of multiple imaging pulses and a separate release burst.’IEEE Trans. UFFC48 (2001): 643–651
92.
LindnerJ. R.VillanuevaF. S.DentJ. M.WeiK.SklenarJ.KaulS.‘Assessment of resting perfusion with myocardial contrast echocardiography: Theoretical and practical considerations.’Am. Heart. J.139 (2000): 231–240
93.
Leong-PoiH.RimS. J.LeD. E.FisherN. G.WeiK.KaulS.‘Perfusion versus function. The ischemic cascade in demand ischemia: Implications of single-vessel versus multivessel stenosis.’Circulation105 (2002): 987–992
94.
FirschkeC.LindnerJ. R.WeiK.GoodmanN. C.SkybaD. M.KaulS.‘Myocardial perfusion imaging in the setting of coronary artery stenosis and acute myocardial infarction using venous injection of a second-generation echocardiographic contrast agent.’Circulation96 (1997): 959–967
95.
LindnerJ. R.FirschkeC.WeiK.GoodmanN. C.SkybaD. M.KaulS.‘Myocardial perfusion characteristics and hemodynamic profile of MRX-115, a venous echocardiographic contrast agent, during acute myocardial infarction.’J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogram11 (1998): 36–46
96.
ElhendyA.O'LearyE. L.XieF.McGrainA. C.AndersonJ. R.PorterT. R.‘Comparative accuracy of real-time myocardial contrast perfusion imaging and wall motion analysis during dobutamine stress echocardiography for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease.’J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.44 (2004): 2185–2191
97.
MicariA.BelcikT. A.BalcellsE. A.PowersE.WeiK.KaulS.LindnerJ. R.‘Improvement in microvascular reflow and reduction of infarct size with adenosine in patients undergoing primary coronary stenting.’Am. J. Cardiol.96 (2005): 1410–1415
98.
BalcellsE.PowersE. R.LepperW.BelcikT.WeiK.RagostaM.SamadyH.LindnerJ. R.‘Detection of myocardial viability by contrast echocardiography in acute infarction predicts recovery of resting function and contractile reserve.’J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.41 (2003): 827–833
99.
IwakuraK.ItoH.TakiuchiS.TaniyamaY.NakatsuchiY.NegoroS.HigashinoY.OkamuraA.MasuyamaT.HoriM.FujiiK.MinaminoT.‘Alternation in the coronary blood flow velocity pattern in patients with no reflow and reperfused acute myocardial infarction.’Circulation94 (1996): 1269–1275
100.
ItoH.MaruyamaA.IwakuraK.TakiuchiS.MasuyamaT.HoriM.HigashinoY.FujiiK.MinaminoT.‘Clinical implications of the ‘no reflow’ phenomenon. A predictor of complications and left ventricular remodeling in reperfused anterior wall myocardial infarction.’Circulation93 (1996): 223–228
101.
MezaM. F.RameeS.CollinsT.StapletonD.MilaniR. V.MurgoJ. P.CheirifJ.‘Knowledge of perfusion and contractile reserve improves the predictive value of recovery of regional myocardial function postrevascularization: A study using the combination of myocardial contrast echocardiography and dobutamine echocardiography.’Circulation96 (1997): 3459–3465
102.
PorterT. R.LiS. P.OsterR.DeligonulU.‘The clinical implications of no reflow demonstrated with intravenous perfluorocarbon containing microbubbles following restoration of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow in patients with acute myocardial infarction.’Am. J. Cardiol.82 (1998): 1173–1177
103.
KampO.LepperW.VanoverscheldeJ. L.AeschbacherB. C.RovaiD.AssayagP.VociP.KlosterY.DistanteA.VisserC. A.‘Serial evaluation of perfusion defects in patients with a first acute myocardial infarction referred for primary PTCA using intravenous myocardial contrast echocardiography.’Eur. Heart J.22 (2001): 1485–1495
104.
ShimoniS.FrangogiannisN. G.AggeliC. J.ShanK.QuinonesM. A.EspadaR.LetsouG. V.LawrieG. M.WintersW. L.ReardonM. J.ZoghbiW. A.‘Microvascular structural correlates of myocardial contrast echocardiography in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction: Implications for the assessment of myocardial hibernation.’Circulation106 (2002): 950–956
CosgroveD. O.‘A revolution in liver ultrasound.’Eur. J. Gastroenter. Hepatol.19 (2007): 1–2
108.
WilsonS. R.BurnsP. N.MuradaliD.WilsonJ. A.LaiX. M.‘Harmonic hepatic US with microbubble contrast agent: Initial experience showing improved characterization of hemangioma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and metastasis.’Radiology215 (2000): 153–161
109.
AlbrechtT.BlomleyM. J. K.BurnsP. N.WilsonS.HarveyC. J.LeenE.ClaudonM.CalliadaF.CorreasJ. M.LaFortuneM.CampaniR.HoffmannC. W.CosgroveD. O.LeFevreF.‘Improved detection of hepatic metastases with pulse-inversion US during the liver-specific phase of SHU 508A: Multicenter study.’Radiology227 (2003): 361–370
110.
WilsonS. R.BurnsP. N.‘An algorithm for the diagnosis of focal liver masses using microbubble contrast-enhanced pulse-inversion sonography.’Am. J. Roentgenol.186 (2006): 1401–1412
111.
OldenburgA.HohmannJ.FoertE.SkrokJ.HoffmannC. W.FrericksB.WolfK. J.AlbrechtT.‘Detection of hepatic metastases with low MI real time contrast enhanced sonography and SonoVue.’Ultraschall Med.26 (2005): 277–284
112.
DietrichC. F.KratzerW.StrobelD.DanseE.FesslR.BunkA.VossasU.HauensteinK.KochW.BlankW.OudkerkM.HahnD.GreisC.‘Assessment of metastatic liver disease in patients with primary extrahepatic tumors by contrast-enhanced sonography versus CT and MRI.’World J. Gastroenterol.12 (2006): 1699–1705
113.
KonopkeR.KerstingS.BergertH.BloomenthalA.GastmeierJ.SaegerH. D.BunkA.‘Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography to detect liver metastases: A prospective trial to compare transcutaneous unenhanced and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in patients undergoing laparotomy.’Int. J. Colorectal Dis.22 (2007): 201–207
114.
QuaiaE.D'OnofrioM.PalumboA.RossiS.BruniS.CovaM.‘Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography vs baseline ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography in metastatic disease of the liver: Diagnostic performance and confidence.’Eur. Radiol.16 (2006): 1599–1609
115.
AlbrechtT.BlomleyM.BolondiL.ClaudonM.CorreasJ. M.CosgroveD.GreinerL.JagerK.de JongN.LeenE.LencioniR.LindsellD.MarteganiA.SolbiatiL.ThoreliusL.TranquartF.WeskottH. P.WhittinghamT.‘Guidelines for the use of contrast agents in lines for the use of contrast agents in ultrasound.’Ultraschall Med.25 (2004): 249–256
116.
VilanaR.BianchiL.VarelaM.NicolauC.SanchezM.AyusoC.GarciaM.SalaM.LlovetJ. M.BruixJ.BruC.‘Is microbubble-enhanced ultrasonography sufficient for assessment of response to percutaneous treatment in patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma?’Eur. Radiol.16 (2006): 2454–2462
117.
MeloniM. F.LivraghiT.FiliceC.LazzaroniS.CalliadaF.PerrettiL.‘Radiofrequency ablation of liver tumours: The role of microbubble contrast agents.’Ultrasound, Q22 (2006): 41–47
118.
HauffP.FritzschT.ReinhardtM.WeitschiesW.LudersF.UhlendorfV.HeldmannD.‘Delineation of experimental liver tumors in rabbits by a new ultrasound contrast agent and stimulated acoustic emission.’Invest. Radiol.32 (1997): 94–99
119.
ForsbergF.GoldbergB. B.LiuJ. B.MertonD. A.RawoolN. M.ShiW. T.‘Tissue specific US contrast agent for evaluation of hepatic and splenic parenchyma.’Radiology210 (1999): 125–132
120.
QuaiaE.BlomleyM. J. K.PatelS.HarveyC. J.PadhaniA.PriceP.CosgroveD. O.‘Initial observation on the effect of irradiation on the liver-specific uptake of Levovist.’Eur. J. Radiol.41 (2002): 192–199
121.
KindbergG. M.TolleshaugH.RoosN.SkotlandT.‘Hepatic clearance of Sonazoid perfluorobutane microbubble by Kupffer cells does not reduce the ability of liver to phagocytose or degrade albumin microspheres.’Cell Tissue Res.312 (2003): 49–54
122.
HarveyC. J.BlomleyM. J. K.EckersleyR. J.CosgroveD. O.‘Developments in ultrasound contrast media.’Eur. Radiol.11 (2001): 675–689
TarantinoL.FrancicaG.SordelliI.EspositoF.GiorgioA.SorrentinoP.de StefanoG.Di SarnoA.FerraioliG.SperlonganoP.‘Diagnosis of benign and malignant portal vein thrombosis in cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Color Doppler US, contrast-enhanced US, and fine-needle biopsy.’Abdom. Imaging31 (2006): 537–544
125.
Dill-MackyM. J.BurnsP. N.KhaliliK.WilsonS. R.‘Focal hepatic masses: Enhancement patterns with SHU508A and pulse inversion US.’Radiol.222 (2002): 95–102
126.
QuaiaE.BertolottoM.CalderanL.MosconiE.MucelliR. P.‘US characterization of focal hepatic lesions with intermittent high acoustic power mode and contrast material.’Acad. Radiol.10 (2003): 739–750
127.
CatalanoO.SandomenicoF.RasoM. M.SianiA.‘Low mechanical contrast-enhanced sonographic findings of pyogenic hepatic abscesses.’AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.182 (2004): 447–450
128.
NicolauC.CatalaV.VilanaR.GilabertR.BianchiL.SoleM.PagesM.BruC.‘Evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma using SonoVue, a second generation ultrasound contrast agent: Correlation with cellular differentiation.’Eur. Radiol.14 (2004): 1092–1099
129.
QuaiaE.BartolottaT. V.MidiriM.BartolottoM.BelgranoM.CovaM.‘Analysis of different contrast enhancement patterns after microbubble-based contrast agent injection in liver hemangiomas with atypical appearance at baseline scan.’Abdom. Imag.31 (2006): 59–64
130.
QuaiaE.CalliadaF.BertolottoM.RossiS.GarioniL.RosaL.Pozzi-MucelliR.‘Characterisation of focal liver lesions by contrast-specific US modes and a sulfur hexafluoride-filled microbubble contrast agent: Diagnostic performance and confidence.’Radiol.232 (2004): 420–430
131.
KimS. H.LeeJ. M.LeeJ. Y.HanJ. K.AnS. K.HanC. J.LeeK. H.HwangS. S.ChoiB. I.‘Value of contrast-enhanced sonography for the characterization of focal hepatic lesions in patients with diffuse liver disease: Receiver operating characteristic analysis.’AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.184 (2005): 1077–1084
132.
NicolauC.VilanaR.CatalaV.BianchiL.GilabertR.GarciaA.BruC.‘Importance of evaluating all vascular phases on contrast-enhanced sonography in the differentiation of benign from malignant focal liver lesions.’AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.186 (2006): 158–167
133.
LeenE.CeccottiP.KalogeropoulouC.AngersonW. J.MougS. J.HorganP. J.‘Prospective multicenter trial evaluating a novel method of characterizing focal liver lesions using contrast-enhanced sonography.’AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.186 (2006): 1551–1559
134.
HarveyC. J.LimA. K.LynchM.BlomleyM. J. K.CosgroveD. O.‘Application of ultrasound microbubbles in spleen.’ In Contrast media in ultrasonography: basic principles and clinical applications (Ed. QuaiaE.), pp. 205–219 (SpringerBerlin).
135.
CatalanoO.SandomenicoF.MatarazzoI.SianiA.‘Contrast-enhanced sonography of the spleen.’AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.184 (2005): 1150–1156
136.
ClaudonM.PlouinP. F.BaxterG. M.RohbanT.DevosD. M.‘Renal arteries in patients at risk of renal arterial stenosis: Multicenter evaluation of the echo-enhancer SHU508A at color and spectral Doppler US. Levovist Renal Artery Stenosis Study Group.’Radiology214 (2000): 739–746
QuaiaE.SiracusanoS.BertolottoM.MonduzziM.MucelliR. P.‘Characterisation of renal tumours with pulse inversion harmonic imaging by intermittent high mechanical technique. Preliminary results.’Eur. Radiol.13 (2003): 1402–1412
139.
TamaiH.TakiguchiY.OkaM.ShingakiN.EnomotoS.ShirakiT.FurutaM.InoueI.IguchiM.YanaokaK.AriiK.ShimizuY.NakataH.ShinkaT.SankeT.IchinoseM.‘Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis of solid renal tumors.’J. Ultrasound Med.24 (2005): 1635–1640
140.
LefevreF.CorreasJ. M.BrianconS.HelenonO.KesslerM.ClaudonM.‘Contrast-enhanced sonography of the renal the transplant using triggered pulse-inversion imaging: Preliminary results.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.28 (2002): 303–314
141.
CosgroveD. O.ChanK. E.‘Renal transplants: What ultrasound can and cannot do.’Ultrasound24 (2008): 77–87
142.
BragadeeshT.SariI.PascottoM.MicariA.KaulS.LindnerJ. R.‘Detection of peripheral vascular stenosis by assessing skeletal muscle flow reserve.’J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.45 (2005): 780–785
143.
WeberM.KrixM.JappeU.HuttnerH.HartmannM.Meyding-LamadeU.EssigM.FiehnC.KauczorH.DelormeS.‘Pathologic skeletal muscle perfusion in patients with myositis: Detection with quantitative contrast-enhanced US-initial results.’Radiology.238 (2006): 640–649
144.
FeinsteinS. B.‘The powerful microbubble: From bench to bedside, from intravascular indicator to therapeutic delivery system, and beyond.’Am. J. Phys.-Heart Circ.287 (2004): H450-H457.
145.
FeinsteinS. B.‘Contrast ultrasound imaging of the carotid artery vasa vasorum and atherosclerotic plaque neovascularization.’J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.48 (2006): 236–243
146.
VavuranakisM.KakadiarisI. A.O'MalleyS. M.PapaioannouT. G.SanidasE. A.NaghaviM.CarlierS.TousoulisD.StefanadisC.‘A new method for assessment of plaque vulnerability based on vasa vasorum imaging, by using contrast-enhanced intravascular ultrasound and differential image analysis.’Int. J. Cardiol.130 (2008): 23–29
147.
ColiS.MagnoniM.SangiorgiG.Marrocco-TrischittaM. M.MelisurgoG.MaurielloA.SpagnoliL.ChiesaR.CianfloneD.MaseriA.‘Contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of intraplaque neovascularization in carotid arteries.’J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.52 (2008): 223–230
148.
KernR.KablauM.SallustioF.FatarM.StroickM.HennericiM. G.MeairsS.‘Improved detection of intracerebral hemorrhage with transcranial ultrasound perfusion imaging.’Cerebrovasc. Dis.26 (2008): 277–283
149.
YanoA.ItoH.IwakuraK.KimuraR.TanakaK.OkamuraA.KawanoS.MasuyamaT.FujiiK.‘Myocardial contrast echocardiography with a new calibration method can estimate myocardial viability in patients with myocardial infarction.’J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.43 (2004): 1799–1806
150.
VogelR.IndermuhleA.ReinhardtJ.MeierP.SiegristP. T.NamdarM.KaufmannP. A.SeilerC.‘The quantification of absolute myocardial perfusion in humans by contrast echocardiography: Algorithm and validation.’J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.45 (2005): 754–762
151.
EydingJ.WilkeningW.ReckhardtM.SchmidG.MevesS.ErmertH.PrzuntekH.PostertT.‘Contrast burst depletion imaging (CODIM): A new imaging procedure and analysis method for semiquantitative ultrasonic perfusion imaging.’Stroke34 (2003): 77–83
152.
LucidarmeO.KonoY.CorbeilJ.ChoiS.-H.MattreyR. F.‘Validation of ultrasound contrast destruction imaging for flow quantification.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.29 (2003): 1697–1704
153.
OhmoriK.DeMariaA. N.CotterB.KwanO. L.OshitaA.KondoI.MizushigeK.KohnoM.‘Effect of microbubble fragility on transit rate measurement by contrast echography.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.29 (2003): 271–276
154.
SchlosserT.PohlC.VeltmannC.LohmaierS.GoenecheaJ.EhlgenA.KosterJ.BimmelD.Kuntz-HehnerS.BecherH.TiemannK.‘Feasibility of the flash-replenishment concept in renal tissue: Which parameters affect the assessment of the contrast replenishment?’Ultrasound Med. Biol.27 (2001): 937–944
155.
RimS. J.Leong-PoiH.LindnerJ. R.CoutureD.EllegalaD.MasonH.DurieuxM.KasselN. F.KaulS.‘Quantification of cerebral perfusion with ‘real-time’ contrast-enhanced ultrasound.’Circulation104 (2001): 2582–2587
156.
LucidarmeO.Franchi-AbellaS.CorreasJ. M.BridalS. L.KurtisovskiE.BergerG.‘Blood flow quantification with contrast-enhanced US: ‘Entrance in the section’ phenomenon-phantom and rabbit study.’Radiology228 (2003): 473–479
157.
KrixM.KiesslingF.FarhanN.SchmidtK.HoffendJ.DelormeS.‘A multivessel model describing replenishment kinetics of ultrasound contrast agent for quantification of tissue perfusion.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.29 (2003): 1421–1430
158.
KrixM.PlathowC.KiesslingF.HerthF.KarcherA.EssigM.SchmitteckertH.KauczorH. U.DelormeS.‘Quantification of perfusion of liver tissue and metastases using a multivessel model for replenishment kinetics of ultrasound contrast agents.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.30 (2004): 1355–1363
159.
ArditiM.FrinkingP. J. A.ZhouX.RogninN. G.‘A new formalism for the quantification of tissue perfusion by the destruct ion-replenishment method in contrast ultrasound imaging.’IEEE Trans. UFFC53 (2006): 1118–1129
TangM.-X.EckersleyR. J.‘Frequency and pressure dependent attenuation and scattering by microbubbles.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.33 (2007): 164–168
162.
SborosV.MoranC. M.AndersonT.PyeS. D.MacleodI. C.MillarA. M.McDickenW. N.‘Evaluation of an experimental system for the in-vitro assessment of ultrasonic contrast agents.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.26 (2000): 105–111
163.
SborosV.MoranC. M.AndersonT.GatzoulisL.CritonA.AverkiouM.McDickenW. N.‘An in-vitro system for the study of ultrasound contrast agents using a commercial imaging system.’Phys. Med. Biol.46 (2001): 3301–3321
164.
TangM. X.MariJ. M.WellsP. N.EckersleyR. J.‘Attenuation correction in ultrasound contrast agent imaging: Elementary theory and preliminary experimental evaluation.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.34 (2008): 1998–2008
165.
MuleS.de CesareA.LucidarmeO.FrouinF.HermentA.‘Regularized estimation of contrast agent attenuation to improve the imaging of microbubbles in small animal studies.’Ultrasound Med. Biol.34 (2008): 938–948
166.
LassauN.ChamiL.BenatsonB.PetroneauP.RocheA.‘Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (DCE-US) with quantification of tumor perfusion: A new diagnostic tool to evaluate the early effects of antiangiogenic treatment.’Eur. Radiol. Suppl.17 (2007): F89-F98.
167.
LavisseS.LejeuneP.RouffiacV.ElieN.BribesE.DemersB.VrignaudP.BisseryM. C.BruleA.KoscielnyS.PeronneauP.LassauN.‘Early quantitative evaluation of a tumor vasculature disruptive agent AVE8062 using dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography.’Invest. Radiol.43 (2008): 100–111
168.
ButlerM. B.ThomasD. H.PyeS. D.MoranC. M.McDickenW. N.SborosV.‘The acoustic response from individual attached and unattached rigid.’Appl. Phys. Lett.93 (2008): 223906
169.
LiuH.JiangY.-X.LiuJ.-B.ZhuQ.-L.SunQ.‘Evaluation of breast lesions with contrast-enhanced ultrasound using the microvascular imaging technique: Initial observations.’Breast17 (2008): 532–539
170.
KaulS.KellyP.OlinerJ. D.GlasheenW. P.KellerM. W.WatsonD. D.‘Assessment of regional myocardial blood flow with myocardial contrast two-dimensional echocardiography.’J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.13 (1989): 468–482
171.
FosterF. S.BurnsP. N.SimpsonD. H.WilsonS. R.ChristopherD. A.GoertzD. E.‘Ultrasound for the visualization and quantification of tumor microcirculation.’Cancer Met. Rev.19 (2000): 131–138
172.
LuoW.NumataK.MorimotoM.NozakiA.NaganoY.SugimoriK.TanakaK.‘Three-dimensional contrast-enhanced sonography of vascular patterns of focal liver tumors: Pilot study of visualization methods.’Am. J. Roentgen192 (2009): 165–173
173.
KlibanovA. L.‘Targeted delivery of gas-filled microspheres, contrast agents for ultrasound imaging.’Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.37 (1999): 139–157
WellerG. E. R.LuE.CsikariM. M.KlibanovA. L.FischerD.WagnerW. R.VillanuevaF. S.‘Ultrasound imaging of acute cardiac transplant rejection with microbubbles targeted to intercellular adhesion molecule-1.’Circulation108 (2003): 218–224
176.
KondoI.OhmoriK.OshitaA.TakeuchiH.YoshidaJ.ShinomiyaK.FukeS.SuzukiT.MizushigeK.KohnoM.‘Leukocyte-targeted myocardial contrast echocardiography can assess the degree of acute allograft rejection in a rat cardiac transplantation model.’Circulation109 (2004): 1056–1061
177.
LindnerJ. R.SongJ.ChristiansenJ.KlibanovA. L.XuF.LeyK.‘Ultrasound assessment of inflammation and renal tissue injury with microbubbles targeted to P-selectin.’Circulation104 (2001): 2107–2112
178.
KaufmannB. A.SandersJ. M.DavisC.XieA.AldredP.SarembockI. J.LindnerJ. R.‘Molecular imaging of inflammation in atherosclerosis with targeted ultrasound detection of vascular cell adhesion molecule-1.’Circulation116 (2007): 276–284
179.
Leong-PoiH.ChristiansenJ.KlibanovA. L.KaulS.LindnerJ. R.‘Noninvasive assessment of angiogenesis by ultrasound and microbubbles targeted to alpha(v)-integrins.’Circulation107 (2003): 455–460
180.
PalmowskiM.HuppertJ.LadewigG.HauffP.ReinhardtM.MuellerM. M.WoenneE. C.JenneJ. W.MaurerM.KauffmannG. W.SemmierW.KiesslinF.‘Molecular profiling of angiogenesis with targeted ultrasound imaging: Early assessment of antiangiogenic therapy effects.’Mol. Cancer Therapeutics7 (2008): 101–109
