Comparison of different perfluorocarbons as ultrasound contrast agents

Rory Satterfield, V. Marie Tarter, D. James Schumacher, Phero Tran, Robert F. Mattrey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES. The sonographic properties of Fluosol 20% (F20), which was recently approved for clinical use as an oxygen carrier for coronary angioplasty, were compared to those of perflubron emulsion, which is still in clinical testing. METHODS. Contrast agents were evaluated in 21 normal rabbits divided into three groups of seven rabbits each. All rabbits received 2.7 g/kg of perfluorocarbon (PFC). One group received 2.7 ml/kg of an experimental formulation of perflubron emulsion AF0102, which contains 1 g of PFC in 1 ml of emulsion (P100), the other received 13.5ml/kg of F20 (1 ml has 0.2g of PFC), and the third received 13.5ml/kg of P100 diluted to a 20% concentration (P20). All rabbits were scanned by a blinded sonographer before, during, and immediately after infusion, and then again at 30 minutes and 48 hours. Doppler enhancement, echogenicity of inferior vena cava lumen, echogenic enhancement of perfused tissues, and reticuloendothelial organs were assessed. RESULTS. P100 and P20 had nearly identical sonographic properties at all points. During their vascular phase they enhanced Doppler signal, filled the lumen of the IVC and hepatic veins with flowing echogenic reflectors, and enhanced perfused tissues. F20 had no detectable sonographic effect during its vascular phase. All three emulsions enhanced the liver relative to kidney to a similar degree at 48 hours. CONCLUSIONS. Because RE enhancement was similar for F20, P100, and P20, and because P100 and P20 had similar properties during the vascular phase, the lack of vascular effect of F20 could not be due to the different PFCs used in these agents, or due to the difference in the dilution or volume. The most likely cause for the observed sonographic behavior of F20 and P100 is the difference in emulsion formulation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)325-331
Number of pages7
JournalInvestigative Radiology
Volume28
Issue number4
StatePublished - Jan 1 1993

Fingerprint

Fluorocarbons
Contrast Media
Blood Vessels
Emulsions
Rabbits
Hepatic Veins
Inferior Vena Cava
Angioplasty
fluosol
Oxygen
Kidney
Liver

Keywords

  • Doppler
  • Perfluorochemicals
  • Rabbits
  • Ultrasound contrast agent

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Satterfield, R., Tarter, V. M., Schumacher, D. J., Tran, P., & Mattrey, R. F. (1993). Comparison of different perfluorocarbons as ultrasound contrast agents. Investigative Radiology, 28(4), 325-331.

Comparison of different perfluorocarbons as ultrasound contrast agents. / Satterfield, Rory; Tarter, V. Marie; Schumacher, D. James; Tran, Phero; Mattrey, Robert F.

In: Investigative Radiology, Vol. 28, No. 4, 01.01.1993, p. 325-331.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Satterfield, R, Tarter, VM, Schumacher, DJ, Tran, P & Mattrey, RF 1993, 'Comparison of different perfluorocarbons as ultrasound contrast agents', Investigative Radiology, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 325-331.
Satterfield R, Tarter VM, Schumacher DJ, Tran P, Mattrey RF. Comparison of different perfluorocarbons as ultrasound contrast agents. Investigative Radiology. 1993 Jan 1;28(4):325-331.
Satterfield, Rory ; Tarter, V. Marie ; Schumacher, D. James ; Tran, Phero ; Mattrey, Robert F. / Comparison of different perfluorocarbons as ultrasound contrast agents. In: Investigative Radiology. 1993 ; Vol. 28, No. 4. pp. 325-331.
@article{97407872baae43d4846f4a27f7d074d2,
title = "Comparison of different perfluorocarbons as ultrasound contrast agents",
abstract = "RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES. The sonographic properties of Fluosol 20{\%} (F20), which was recently approved for clinical use as an oxygen carrier for coronary angioplasty, were compared to those of perflubron emulsion, which is still in clinical testing. METHODS. Contrast agents were evaluated in 21 normal rabbits divided into three groups of seven rabbits each. All rabbits received 2.7 g/kg of perfluorocarbon (PFC). One group received 2.7 ml/kg of an experimental formulation of perflubron emulsion AF0102, which contains 1 g of PFC in 1 ml of emulsion (P100), the other received 13.5ml/kg of F20 (1 ml has 0.2g of PFC), and the third received 13.5ml/kg of P100 diluted to a 20{\%} concentration (P20). All rabbits were scanned by a blinded sonographer before, during, and immediately after infusion, and then again at 30 minutes and 48 hours. Doppler enhancement, echogenicity of inferior vena cava lumen, echogenic enhancement of perfused tissues, and reticuloendothelial organs were assessed. RESULTS. P100 and P20 had nearly identical sonographic properties at all points. During their vascular phase they enhanced Doppler signal, filled the lumen of the IVC and hepatic veins with flowing echogenic reflectors, and enhanced perfused tissues. F20 had no detectable sonographic effect during its vascular phase. All three emulsions enhanced the liver relative to kidney to a similar degree at 48 hours. CONCLUSIONS. Because RE enhancement was similar for F20, P100, and P20, and because P100 and P20 had similar properties during the vascular phase, the lack of vascular effect of F20 could not be due to the different PFCs used in these agents, or due to the difference in the dilution or volume. The most likely cause for the observed sonographic behavior of F20 and P100 is the difference in emulsion formulation.",
keywords = "Doppler, Perfluorochemicals, Rabbits, Ultrasound contrast agent",
author = "Rory Satterfield and Tarter, {V. Marie} and Schumacher, {D. James} and Phero Tran and Mattrey, {Robert F.}",
year = "1993",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "325--331",
journal = "Investigative Radiology",
issn = "0020-9996",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of different perfluorocarbons as ultrasound contrast agents

AU - Satterfield, Rory

AU - Tarter, V. Marie

AU - Schumacher, D. James

AU - Tran, Phero

AU - Mattrey, Robert F.

PY - 1993/1/1

Y1 - 1993/1/1

N2 - RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES. The sonographic properties of Fluosol 20% (F20), which was recently approved for clinical use as an oxygen carrier for coronary angioplasty, were compared to those of perflubron emulsion, which is still in clinical testing. METHODS. Contrast agents were evaluated in 21 normal rabbits divided into three groups of seven rabbits each. All rabbits received 2.7 g/kg of perfluorocarbon (PFC). One group received 2.7 ml/kg of an experimental formulation of perflubron emulsion AF0102, which contains 1 g of PFC in 1 ml of emulsion (P100), the other received 13.5ml/kg of F20 (1 ml has 0.2g of PFC), and the third received 13.5ml/kg of P100 diluted to a 20% concentration (P20). All rabbits were scanned by a blinded sonographer before, during, and immediately after infusion, and then again at 30 minutes and 48 hours. Doppler enhancement, echogenicity of inferior vena cava lumen, echogenic enhancement of perfused tissues, and reticuloendothelial organs were assessed. RESULTS. P100 and P20 had nearly identical sonographic properties at all points. During their vascular phase they enhanced Doppler signal, filled the lumen of the IVC and hepatic veins with flowing echogenic reflectors, and enhanced perfused tissues. F20 had no detectable sonographic effect during its vascular phase. All three emulsions enhanced the liver relative to kidney to a similar degree at 48 hours. CONCLUSIONS. Because RE enhancement was similar for F20, P100, and P20, and because P100 and P20 had similar properties during the vascular phase, the lack of vascular effect of F20 could not be due to the different PFCs used in these agents, or due to the difference in the dilution or volume. The most likely cause for the observed sonographic behavior of F20 and P100 is the difference in emulsion formulation.

AB - RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES. The sonographic properties of Fluosol 20% (F20), which was recently approved for clinical use as an oxygen carrier for coronary angioplasty, were compared to those of perflubron emulsion, which is still in clinical testing. METHODS. Contrast agents were evaluated in 21 normal rabbits divided into three groups of seven rabbits each. All rabbits received 2.7 g/kg of perfluorocarbon (PFC). One group received 2.7 ml/kg of an experimental formulation of perflubron emulsion AF0102, which contains 1 g of PFC in 1 ml of emulsion (P100), the other received 13.5ml/kg of F20 (1 ml has 0.2g of PFC), and the third received 13.5ml/kg of P100 diluted to a 20% concentration (P20). All rabbits were scanned by a blinded sonographer before, during, and immediately after infusion, and then again at 30 minutes and 48 hours. Doppler enhancement, echogenicity of inferior vena cava lumen, echogenic enhancement of perfused tissues, and reticuloendothelial organs were assessed. RESULTS. P100 and P20 had nearly identical sonographic properties at all points. During their vascular phase they enhanced Doppler signal, filled the lumen of the IVC and hepatic veins with flowing echogenic reflectors, and enhanced perfused tissues. F20 had no detectable sonographic effect during its vascular phase. All three emulsions enhanced the liver relative to kidney to a similar degree at 48 hours. CONCLUSIONS. Because RE enhancement was similar for F20, P100, and P20, and because P100 and P20 had similar properties during the vascular phase, the lack of vascular effect of F20 could not be due to the different PFCs used in these agents, or due to the difference in the dilution or volume. The most likely cause for the observed sonographic behavior of F20 and P100 is the difference in emulsion formulation.

KW - Doppler

KW - Perfluorochemicals

KW - Rabbits

KW - Ultrasound contrast agent

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027818461&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027818461&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 8478173

AN - SCOPUS:0027818461

VL - 28

SP - 325

EP - 331

JO - Investigative Radiology

JF - Investigative Radiology

SN - 0020-9996

IS - 4

ER -