4.5 Article

EVALUATION OF METHODS FOR SIZING AND COUNTING OF ULTRASOUND CONTRAST AGENTS

Journal

ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 5, Pages 834-845

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.01.012

Keywords

Microbubble number count; Mean size diameter; Size distribution; Electro-impedance volumetric zone sensing; Optical microscopy; Laser diffraction; Intra-method variation; SonoVue (TM)

Funding

  1. British Heart Foundation [PG/04/116/17845]
  2. EPSRC [EP/G038163/1]
  3. UK Medical Research Council [G0100120]
  4. Hammersmith Hospital
  5. EPSRC [EP/I021795/1, EP/G038163/1, EP/F066740/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. MRC [MR/K006355/1, MC_U120061309, G0100120] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/G038163/1, EP/F066740/1, EP/I021795/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Medical Research Council [MC_U120061309, MR/K006355/1, G0100120] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A precise, accurate and well documented method for the sizing and counting of microbubbles is essential for all aspects of quantitative microbubble-enhanced ultrasound imaging. The efficacy of (a) electro-impedance volumetric zone sensing (ES) also called a Coulter counter/multisizer; (b) optical microscopy (OM); and (c) laser diffraction (LD), for the sizing and counting of microbubbles was assessed. Microspheres with certified mean diameter and number concentration were used to assess sizing and counting reproducibility (precision) and reliability (accuracy) of ES, OM and LD. SonoVue (TM) was repeatedly (n = 3) sized and counted to validate ES, OM and LD sizing and counting efficacy. Statistical analyses of intra-method variability for the SonoVue (TM) mean diameter showed that the best microbubble sizing reproducibility was obtained using OM with a mean diameter sizing variability of 1.1%, compared with a variability of 4.3% for ES and 7.1% for LD. The best microbubble counting reproducibility was obtained using ES with a number concentration variability of 8.3%, compared with a variability of 22.4% forOMand 32% for LD. This study showed that no method is fully suited to both sizing and counting of microbubbles. (E-mail: c.sennoga@imperial.ac.uk) (C) 2012 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available