The safety profile of perflutren microsphere contrast echocardiography during rest and stress imaging: Results from an Australian multicentre cohort

Platts, David G., Luis, Sushil A., Roper, Damian, Burstow, Darryl, Call, Tony, Forshaw, Anthony and Pascoe, Roess (2013) The safety profile of perflutren microsphere contrast echocardiography during rest and stress imaging: Results from an Australian multicentre cohort. Heart Lung and Circulation, 22 12: 996-1002. doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2013.05.637


Author Platts, David G.
Luis, Sushil A.
Roper, Damian
Burstow, Darryl
Call, Tony
Forshaw, Anthony
Pascoe, Roess
Title The safety profile of perflutren microsphere contrast echocardiography during rest and stress imaging: Results from an Australian multicentre cohort
Journal name Heart Lung and Circulation   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1443-9506
1444-2892
Publication date 2013-01-01
Year available 2013
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1016/j.hlc.2013.05.637
Open Access Status Not Open Access
Volume 22
Issue 12
Start page 996
End page 1002
Total pages 7
Place of publication Chatswood, NSW Australia
Publisher Elsevier Australia
Language eng
Subject 2705 Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
2740 Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
Abstract 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.
Keyword Contrast echocardiography
Dobutamine stress echocardiography
Exercise stress echocardiography
Left ventricular opacification
Safety
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Official 2014 Collection
School of Medicine Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 11 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 11 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 17 Dec 2013, 10:34:22 EST by System User on behalf of Medicine - Prince Charles Hospital