TY - JOUR
T1 - The safety profile of perflutren microsphere contrast echocardiography during rest and stress imaging
T2 - Results from an Australian multicentre cohort
AU - Platts, David G.
AU - Luis, Sushil A.
AU - Roper, Damian
AU - Burstow, Darryl
AU - Call, Tony
AU - Forshaw, Anthony
AU - Pascoe, Roess
PY - 2013/12
Y1 - 2013/12
N2 - Background: Contrast enhanced echocardiography (CEE) is utilised when sub-optimal image quality results in non-diagnostic echocardiograms. However, there have been numerous safety notices issued by regulatory authorities regarding rare but potentially serious adverse reactions (AR). This multi-centre, retrospective analysis was performed to assess the short-term safety of CEE in a broad range of indications. Methods: All CEE performed over 58 months at three institutions were assessed for AR within 30. min. Results: A total of 5956 CEE were performed in 5576 patients. A total of 4903 were stress CEE and 1053 resting CCE. Bolus administration in 5719, infusion in 237 cases; 89.9% of CCE were outpatients. Commonest CEE indication was functional stress testing (82.3%). There were 16 AR related to CEE (0.27%). All AR were mild, transient and all patients made a full recovery. No cases of serious anaphylaxis or death within 30. min of contrast administration. Comparing those with and without an AR, there were no significant differences in age, gender, BMI, LVEF, patient location, exam type or RVSP. There was a slightly increased likelihood of an AR during infusion versus bolus dosing (p= 0.02). Conclusion: CEE is a safe investigation in a broad range of indications and clinical scenarios. AR are very rare, mild and transient.
AB - Background: Contrast enhanced echocardiography (CEE) is utilised when sub-optimal image quality results in non-diagnostic echocardiograms. However, there have been numerous safety notices issued by regulatory authorities regarding rare but potentially serious adverse reactions (AR). This multi-centre, retrospective analysis was performed to assess the short-term safety of CEE in a broad range of indications. Methods: All CEE performed over 58 months at three institutions were assessed for AR within 30. min. Results: A total of 5956 CEE were performed in 5576 patients. A total of 4903 were stress CEE and 1053 resting CCE. Bolus administration in 5719, infusion in 237 cases; 89.9% of CCE were outpatients. Commonest CEE indication was functional stress testing (82.3%). There were 16 AR related to CEE (0.27%). All AR were mild, transient and all patients made a full recovery. No cases of serious anaphylaxis or death within 30. min of contrast administration. Comparing those with and without an AR, there were no significant differences in age, gender, BMI, LVEF, patient location, exam type or RVSP. There was a slightly increased likelihood of an AR during infusion versus bolus dosing (p= 0.02). Conclusion: CEE is a safe investigation in a broad range of indications and clinical scenarios. AR are very rare, mild and transient.
KW - Contrast echocardiography
KW - Dobutamine stress echocardiography
KW - Exercise stress echocardiography
KW - Left ventricular opacification
KW - Safety
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84889084464&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84889084464&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.hlc.2013.05.637
DO - 10.1016/j.hlc.2013.05.637
M3 - Article
C2 - 23764145
AN - SCOPUS:84889084464
SN - 1443-9506
VL - 22
SP - 996
EP - 1002
JO - Heart Lung and Circulation
JF - Heart Lung and Circulation
IS - 12
ER -