In order to bring you the best possible user experience, this site uses Javascript. If you are seeing this message, it is likely that the Javascript option in your browser is disabled. For optimal viewing of this site, please ensure that Javascript is enabled for your browser.
Did you know that your browser is out of date? To get the best experience using our website we recommend that you upgrade to a newer version. Learn more.

We use cookies to optimise the design of this website and make continuous improvement. By continuing your visit, you consent to the use of cookies. Learn more

Detection of myocardial ischaemia

The evidence for use of contrast in clinical echocardiography: Myocardial Contrast Echocardiography – MCE

Non-invasive Imaging: Echocardiography



10. Shimoni S, Zoghbi WA, Xie F, Kricsfeld D, Iskander S, Gobar L, et al. Real-time assessment of myocardial perfusion and wall motion during bicycle and treadmill exercise echocardiography: comparison with single photon emission computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37(3):741-7
16. Senior R, Becher H, Monaghan M, Agati L, Zamorano J, Vanoverschelde JL, et al. Contrast echocardiography: evidence-based recommendations by European Association of Echocardiography. Eur J Echocardiogr 2009;10(2):194-212
22. Kaul S, Jayaweera AR. Coronary and myocardial blood volumes: noninvasive tools to assess the coronary microcirculation? Circulation 1997;96(3):719-24
23. Wei K, Jayaweera AR, Firoozan S, Linka A, Skyba DM, Kaul S. Basis for detection of stenosis using venous administration of microbubbles during myocardial contrast echocardiography: bolus or continuous infusion? J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32(1):252-60
24. Wei K, Jayaweera AR, Firoozan S, Linka A, Skyba DM, Kaul S. Quantification of myocardial blood flow with ultrasound-induced destruction of microbubbles administered as a constant venous infusion. Circulation 1998;97(5):473-83
25. Aggeli C, Giannopoulos G, Roussakis G, Christoforatou E, Marinos G, Toli C, et al. Safety of myocardial flash-contrast echocardiography in combination with dobutamine stress testing for the detection of ischaemia in 5250 studies. Heart 2008;94(12):1571-7
26. Chiou KR, Huang WC, Lin SL, Hsieh PL, Liu CP, Tsay DG, et al. Real-time dobutamine stress myocardial contrast echocardiography for detecting coronary artery disease: correlating abnormal wall motion and disturbed perfusion. Can J Cardiol 2004;20(12):1237-43
27. Cwajg J, Xie F, O'Leary E, Kricsfeld D, Dittrich H, Porter TR. Detection of angiographically significant coronary artery disease with accelerated intermittent imaging after intravenous administration of ultrasound contrast material. Am Heart J 2000;139(4):675-83
28. Elhendy A, O'Leary EL, Xie F, McGrain AC, Anderson JR, Porter TR. 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 2004;44(11):2185-91
29. Hayat SA, Dwivedi G, Jacobsen A, Lim TK, Kinsey C, Senior R. Effects of left bundle-branch block on cardiac structure, function, perfusion, and perfusion reserve: implications for myocardial contrast echocardiography versus radionuclide perfusion imaging for the detection of coronary artery disease. Circulation 2008;117(14):1832-41
30. Heinle SK, Noblin J, Goree-Best P, Mello A, Ravad G, Mull S, et al. Assessment of myocardial perfusion by harmonic power Doppler imaging at rest and during adenosine stress: comparison with (99m)Tc-sestamibi SPECT imaging. Circulation 2000;102(1):55-60
31. Jeetley P, Hickman M, Kamp O, Lang RM, Thomas JD, Vannan MA, et al. Myocardial contrast echocardiography for the detection of coronary artery stenosis: a prospective multicenter study in comparison with single-photon emission computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47(1):141-5
32. Karavidas AI, Matsakas EP, Lazaros GA, Brestas PS, Avramidis DA, Zacharoulis AA, et al. Comparison of myocardial contrast echocardiography with SPECT in the evaluation of coronary artery disease in asymptomatic patients with LBBB. Int J Cardiol 2006;112(3):334-40
33. Korosoglou G, Dubart AE, DaSilva KG, Jr., Labadze N, Hardt S, Hansen A, et al. Real-time myocardial perfusion imaging for pharmacologic stress testing: added value to single photon emission computed tomography. Am Heart J 2006;151(1):131-8
34. Lin SL, Chiou KR, Huang WC, Peng NJ, Tsay DG, Liu CP. Detection of coronary artery disease using real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography: a comparison with dual-isotope resting thallium-201/stress technectium-99m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography. Heart Vessels 2006;21(4):226-35
35. Malm S, Frigstad S, Torp H, Wiseth R, Skjarpe T. Quantitative adenosine real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography for detection of angiographically significant coronary artery disease. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2006;19(4):365-72
36. Moir S, Haluska BA, Jenkins C, Fathi R, Marwick TH. Incremental benefit of myocardial contrast to combined dipyridamole-exercise stress echocardiography for the assessment of coronary artery disease. Circulation 2004;110(9):1108-13
37. Olszowska M, Kostkiewicz M, Tracz W, Przewlocki T. Assessment of myocardial perfusion in patients with coronary artery disease. Comparison of myocardial contrast echocardiography and 99mTc MIBI single photon emission computed tomography. Int J Cardiol 2003;90(1):49-55
38. Peltier M, Vancraeynest D, Pasquet A, Ay T, Roelants V, D'Hondt A M, et al. Assessment of the physiologic significance of coronary disease with dipyridamole real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography. Comparison with technetium-99m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography and quantitative coronary angiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43(2):257-64
39. Rocchi G, Fallani F, Bracchetti G, Rapezzi C, Ferlito M, Levorato M, et al. Non-invasive detection of coronary artery stenosis: a comparison among power-Doppler contrast echo, 99Tc-Sestamibi SPECT and echo wall-motion analysis. Coron Artery Dis 2003;14(3):239-45
40. Senior R, Lepper W, Pasquet A, Chung G, Hoffman R, Vanoverschelde JL, et al. Myocardial perfusion assessment in patients with medium probability of coronary artery disease and no prior myocardial infarction: comparison of myocardial contrast echocardiography with 99mTc single-photon emission computed tomography. Am Heart J 2004;147(6):1100-5
41. Senior R, Janardhanan R, Jeetley P, Burden L. Myocardial contrast echocardiography for distinguishing ischemic from nonischemic first-onset acute heart failure: insights into the mechanism of acute heart failure. Circulation 2005;112(11):1587-93
42. Tsutsui JM, Xie F, McGrain AC, Mahrous H, Hankins J, O'Leary E L, et al. Comparison of low-mechanical index pulse sequence schemes for detecting myocardial perfusion abnormalities during vasodilator stress echocardiography. Am J Cardiol 2005;95(5):565-70
43. Winter R, Gudmundsson P, Willenheimer R. Real-time perfusion adenosine stress echocardiography in the coronary care unit: a feasible bedside tool for predicting coronary artery stenosis in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Eur J Echocardiogr 2005;6(1):31-40
44. Senior R, Monaghan M, Main ML, Zamorano JL, Tiemann K, Agati L, et al. Detection of coronary artery disease with perfusion stress echocardiography using a novel ultrasound imaging agent: two Phase 3 international trials in comparison with radionuclide perfusion imaging. Eur J Echocardiogr 2009;10(1):26-35
45. Arnold JR, Karamitsos TD, Pegg TJ, Francis JM, Olszewski R, Searle N, et al. Adenosine stress myocardial contrast echocardiography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparison with coronary angiography and cardiac magnetic resonance. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3(9):934-43

< Previous page
> Next page

Additional contents from webparts:90% of myocardial blood volume is found in the capillaries [22] and the concentration of microbubbles within the myocardium is reflected by the contrast signal [23]. When the myocardium is fully saturated during contrast infusion, the signal intensity thus reflects the capillary blood volume. If these microbubbles are intentionally destroyed by a high power ultrasonic signal, the rate at which the capillaries replenish (refill with microbubbles) can be observed visually (qualitative assessment) or calculated using off-line software (quantitative assessment) [23]. Blood flows through myocardial capillaries at 1mm/second and an ultrasound beam has an elevation width of 5mm, meaning that it takes about 5s for replenishment of the myocardium. A decrease in coronary blood flow will thus manifest as prolonged replenishment of microbubbles during destruction-replenishment imaging [24].

Intuitively, tissue blood flow is determined by the amount of blood (capillary blood flow) and the speed at which it moves (red blood cell velocity). Therefore, myocardial blood flow (MBF) is calculated as:
Myocardial Blood Flow = Myocardial blood volume X Speed of myocardial flow
Peak contrast intensity X Peak microbubble velocity

STUDY n CAD present (%) MCE Sensitivity MCE Specificity
Aggeli et al [25] 532 413 (78) 92 61
Chiou et al [26] 132 85 (64) 81 77
Cwaig et al [27] 45 32 (71) 87 66
Elhendy et al [28] 170 127 (73) 91 51
Hayat et al [29] 63 25 (40) 92 95
Heinle et al [30] 15 12 (80) 75 67
Jeetley et al [31] 123 96 (78) 84 56
Karavidas et al [32] 47 11 (23) 91 92
Korosoglou et al [33] 89 62 (70) 83 72
Lin et al [34] 40 25 (63) 84 93
Malm et al [35] 43 33 (77) 77 72
Moir et al [36] 90 48 (53) 93 65
Olszowska et al [37] 44 44 (100) 97 93
Peltier et al [38] 35 22 (63) 85 (QL), 97 (QN) 79 (QL), 79 (QN)
Rocchi et al [39] 12 12 (100) 89 100
Senior et al [40] 55 43 (78) 86 88
Senior et al [41] 52 22 (42) 82 97
Shimoni et al [10] 44 28 (64) 75 100
Tsutsui et al [42] 16 13 (81) 64 (RT), 41 (TR) 92 (RT), 96 (TR)
Winter et al [43] 36 35 (97) 81 67
TOTAL 1683 1345 (80)    
MEAN [95% CI]     83 [78-88] 80 [73-87]

Table 1: The accuracy of MCE for detection of coronary artery disease (CAD) (QL = Qualitative; QN = Quantitative; RT = Real-Time; TR = Triggered imaging; CI = Confidence Interval – from Senior et al [16])

Additionally, a multi-centre, international phase III study of over 600 patients – with all image interpretation performed off site by independent readers – found MCE non-inferior to SPECT [44]. Another recent study comparing adenosine MCE with adenosine CMR in 65 patients with suspected CAD undergoing angiography found a sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 76% and overall diagnostic accuracy of 82% for detection of CAD, which was comparable with adenosine CMR [45].