4.5 Article

SAFETY ANALYSIS OF ADVERSE EVENTS OF ULTRASOUND CONTRAST AGENT LUMASON/SONOVUE IN 49,100 PATIENTS

期刊

ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 454-459

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2022.09.014

关键词

Ultrasound; Contrast-enhanced ultrasound; Lumason; Adverse event; Ultrasound contrast agent

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in a large cohort of patients who underwent contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with Lumason/SonoVue. The study found a low incidence of AEs, most of which were mild and had a short duration.
study assessed the incidence of mild, moderate and severe adverse events (AEs) and examined their association with age, sex, body region examined, time to event and duration of the AE(s) in a large cohort of patients who underwent contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with Lumason/SonoVue. In this retrospective observational study, 49,100 patients who underwent CEUS were analyzed. Forty-three (0.088%) patients experienced AEs, with 23 (0.047%) patients experiencing mild AEs, 13 (0.026%) experiencing moderate AEs and 7 (0.014%) experiencing severe AEs. No fatal event occurred. There was no age-or sex-related difference in the incidence of the AE(s) (p = 0.158 and p = 0.474). Inpatients (0.17%) more often experienced AEs than outpatients (0.06%, p = 0.003). The mean time to event for mild and moderate AEs was 14.50 +/- 6.96 and 15.75 +/- 10.40 min, respectively, whereas that for severe AEs was 1.89 +/- 1.21 min after the injection. The remission time for mild and moderate AEs was approximately 30-40 min, and all patients with severe AEs recovered within 12 h. Twenty-one (48.8%) patients received medical treatment. In summary, Lumason/SonoVue has a good safety profile with a low incidence of AEs, most of which are mild with a short time to event and duration. (E-mail: lyk301@163.com) (c) 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据