Effect of intravenous contrast for left ventricular opacification and border definition on sensitivity and specificity of dobutamine stress echocardiography compared with coronary angiography in technically difficult patients.

BACKGROUND: The study evaluates whether Optison used during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) will improve endocardial border definition and whether this will translate to an improvement in sensitivity and specificity of the test in patients with poor echocardiographic windows. DSE is extremely valuable in the workup of patients with coronary artery disease. The test is limited in patients with suboptimal endocardial border visualization. Frequent studies have demonstrated improved endocardial border visualization with intravenous contrast agents at rest. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 229 patients: 112 had good rest echocardiography with no contrast and 117 had poor rest echocardiography with Optison injection during DSE. Percentage of endocardial border visualization, wall thickening, sensitivity, and specificity were compared in both groups, as was interobserver variability. Both groups were matched with respect to age, percentage of previous myocardial infarctions, resting wall motion abnormality, percentage of coronary stenosis, and number of diseased coronary arteries. Optison significantly improved endocardial border visualization, especially at peak stress. The ability to measure wall thickening was significantly higher in the contrast DSE group with suboptimal images versus the noncontrast group with optimal images (89% ability to measure wall thickening vs 71%, P =.01). This resulted in a comparable sensitivity (79% vs 71%, P = not significant [NS]), specificity (76% vs 82%, P = NS), and diagnostic accuracy (80% vs 76%, P = NS). Agreement on test interpretation was higher among 3 observers in contrast DSE versus noncontrast DSE groups (79% vs 69%, P =.01). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with poor echocardiographic windows, the use of Optison during DSE improves endocardial border visualization, which translates to a comparable sensitivity and specificity to noncontrast DSE tests in patients with good echocardiographic windows.

For left ventricular opacification and endocardial border definition: is it really important which contrast agent we use, or is it the imaging modality we choose?

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare the effect of three imaging modalities (fundamental, harmonics, and power harmonics) on left ventricular opacification and endocardial border definition with two different echo agents, Optison and Albunex. METHODS: A total of 84 patients who had suboptimal transthoracic images were studied with echo contrast agents Albunex (n=41) and Optison (n=43). Each contrast agent was examined with three different imaging modalities, fundamental, harmonics and power harmonics, respectively. Left ventricular opacification was obtained by videodensitometric analysis. Percentage of endocardial border visualization was determined by indexing circumference of visualized endocardium to total circumference. Variables were compared with respect to three imaging modalities between two different echo agents. RESULTS: Higher videointensities and higher percentages of endocardial visualization were achieved with Optison compared to Albunex with fundamental and harmonics. However, there was no significant difference between Optison and Albunex with respect to LV opacification and border visualization by power harmonics. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that left ventricular opacification and endocardial border visualization is significantly improved by using power harmonic imaging as compared to harmonics or fundamental imaging following both echo contrast agents. Furthermore, although Optison is clearly superior to Albunex in opacifying left ventricle, power harmonic imaging compensates for the less robust agent.