Influence of different doses of sulphur hexafluoride microbubbles and mechanical indexes setting on imaging quality of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in placenta of pregnant rats

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2020.03.011

Objective

To investigate influence of different contrast agent injection doses of sulphur hexafluoride microbubbles (SHM) through fetal rats′ umbilical veins and different mechanical indexes (MI) setting on imaging quality of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in placental fetal surface of SD rats in late pregnancy.

Methods

Forty SD rats in late pregnancy were selected as study subjects. According to random number table method, they were divided into A, B, C and D groups each group with 10 rats, and doses of SHM were 0.03, 0.06, 0.09 and 0.12 mL/kg, respectively during CEUS. Meanwhile, contrast pulse sequence (CPS) imaging technology was used and MI were set as 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25 and 0.30 in each group. The quantitative analysis was conducted by time-intensity curve (TIC) method for CEUS imaging quality, and 3 indexes measured by TIC for this study included arrival time (AT), time to peak (TTP) and peak intensity (PI) after SHM was injected. One-way ANOVA and least significant difference (LSD)-t test were used for overall comparison and further comparison between each two groups of above 3 indexes when adjusted different SHM doses and set different MI.

Results

① Results of CEUS in placental fetal surface of pregnant rats in C group: when MI setting increased from 0.10 to 0.30, there were no significant differences in AT and TTP (P>0.05). When MI setting increased from 0.10 to 0.20, PI increased with increased of MI (P<0.05), and PI reached the maximum when MI setting was 0.20. When MI setting increased from 0.20 to 0.30, PI showed no significant difference (P>0.05). ② CEUS results of placental fetal surface of pregnant rats in 4 groups when MI setting was 0.20: AT, TTP and PI of C group were (0.95±0.45) s, (7.9±3.0) s and (30.6±4.2) dB, which were significantly different from (1.67±0.83) s, (12.5±2.8) s and (25.5±4.8) dB of those in A group, and the differences were statistically significant (P=0.004, 0.001, 0.004). There were no significant differences between C group and B group, also between C group and D group in those 3 indexes (P>0.05). There were significant differences between B group and D group in AT and TTP (P<0.05); However, there were no significant differences between B group and A group in those 3 indexes, and between B group and D group in PI (P>0.05). There were significant differences between D group and A group in those 3 indexes (P<0.05). With contrast agent dose increased, AT and TTP shorten, while PI increased.

Conclusions

When CEUS was performed on the placental fetal surface of SD rats in late pregnancy, SHM dose was 0.09 mL/kg and MI setting was 0.20 that CEUS may had best imaging quality.

Key words: Ultrasonography, Contrast media, Placenta, Umbilical veins, Sulphur hexafluoride microbubbles, Time-intensity curve, Mechanical index, Rats, Sprague-Dawley

图1 孕龄28 d的SD孕鼠经胎鼠脐静脉团注造影剂(黄色箭头所示为脐静脉)

表1 设置不同MI值，C组10只孕鼠胎盘胎儿面进行CEUS(经胎鼠脐静脉注射SHM剂量为0.09 mL/kg)的TIC 3项指标比较(±s)

MI值	鼠数	AT(s)	TTP(s)	PI(dB)
① 0.10	10	1.1±0.5	8.5±1.9	16.0±4.2
② 0.15	10	1.1±0.4	8.5±2.8	22.3±3.7
③ 0.20	10	1.0±0.5	7.9±3.0	30.6±4.2
④ 0.25	10	0.9±0.4	7.0±1.3	29.0±2.9
⑤ 0.30	10	0.9±0.3	6.7±2.2	28.5±4.0
F值		0.489	1.274	24.988
P值		0.744	0.294	<0.001

表1 设置不同MI值，C组10只孕鼠胎盘胎儿面进行CEUS(经胎鼠脐静脉注射SHM剂量为0.09 mL/kg)的TIC 3项指标比较(±s)

MI值	鼠数	AT(s)	TTP(s)	PI(dB)
① 0.10	10	1.1±0.5	8.5±1.9	16.0±4.2
② 0.15	10	1.1±0.4	8.5±2.8	22.3±3.7
③ 0.20	10	1.0±0.5	7.9±3.0	30.6±4.2
④ 0.25	10	0.9±0.4	7.0±1.3	29.0±2.9
⑤ 0.30	10	0.9±0.3	6.7±2.2	28.5±4.0
F值		0.489	1.274	24.988
P值		0.744	0.294	<0.001

表2 经胎鼠脐静脉注射不同剂量SHM时，4组孕鼠胎盘胎儿面进行CEUS(MI值为0.20)的TIC 3项指标比较(±s)

组别		鼠数	AT(s)	TTP(s)	PI(dB)
A组		10	1.67±0.83	12.5±2.8	25.5±4.8
B组		10	1.29±0.41	10.2±3.7	28.2±3.7
C组		10	0.95±0.45	7.9±3.0	30.6±4.2
D组		10	0.65±0.28	5.6±1.8	31.0±3.0
总体比较
	F值		6.898	10.664	4.683
	P值		<0.001	<0.001	0.007
两两比较P值^a
	A组vs B组		0.117	0.091	0.114
	A组vs C组		0.004	0.001	0.004
	A组vs D组		<0.001	<0.001	0.002
	B组vs C组		0.159	0.075	0.150
	B组vs D组		0.010	<0.001	0.102
	C组vs D组		0.213	0.083	0.835

表2 经胎鼠脐静脉注射不同剂量SHM时，4组孕鼠胎盘胎儿面进行CEUS(MI值为0.20)的TIC 3项指标比较(±s)

组别		鼠数	AT(s)	TTP(s)	PI(dB)
A组		10	1.67±0.83	12.5±2.8	25.5±4.8
B组		10	1.29±0.41	10.2±3.7	28.2±3.7
C组		10	0.95±0.45	7.9±3.0	30.6±4.2
D组		10	0.65±0.28	5.6±1.8	31.0±3.0
总体比较
	F值		6.898	10.664	4.683
	P值		<0.001	<0.001	0.007
两两比较P值^a
	A组vs B组		0.117	0.091	0.114
	A组vs C组		0.004	0.001	0.004
	A组vs D组		<0.001	<0.001	0.002
	B组vs C组		0.159	0.075	0.150
	B组vs D组		0.010	<0.001	0.102
	C组vs D组		0.213	0.083	0.835

[1]	陈佩文，陈欣林，赵胜，等. 声诺维超声造影观察晚孕孕鼠胎盘超微结构改变的初步研究[J/CD]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2009, 6(1): 19-24. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-6448.2009.01.005.
[2]	Stride E, Tang MX, Eckersley RJ. Physical phenomena affecting quantitative imaging of ultrasound contrast agents[J]. Appl Acoust, 2009, 70(10): 1352-1362. DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2008.10.003.
[3]	李杰，董宝玮，于晓玲，等. 肝灰阶超声造影剂量与效果关系的实验研究[J]. 中华超声影像学杂志，2004, 13(7): 547-550. DOI: 10.3760/j.issn:1004-4477.2004.07.018.
[4]	李云华，常才. 超声微泡造影剂在高强度聚焦超声增效领域的研究进展[J]. 中华超声影像学杂志，2015, 24(8): 732-735. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4477.2015.08.031.
[5]	董倩，游小钧，邓琼珍. 微泡造影剂介导的声空效应对胶质瘤大鼠血脑屏障通透性及替莫唑胺疗效的影响[J]. 解放军医学杂志，2017, 42(5): 389-393. DOI: 10.11855/j.issn.0577-7402.2017.05.06.
[6]	郭辉，刘隆忠，郑玮，等. 高频条件不同机械指数下SonoVue与Sonazoid对兔肝超声造影效能的比较[J/CD]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2011, 8(5): 958-967. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2011.05.006.
[7]	Barnett SB, Duck F, Ziskin M. Recommendations on the safe use of ultrasound contrast agents[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2007, 33(2): 173-174. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.07.002.
[8]	李硕阳，尹庭辉，李景果，等. 载siRNA微泡实现肿瘤治疗与疗效评估一体化的可行性分析[J]. 南方医科大学学报，2015, (6): 874-878. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-4254.2015.06.019.
[9]	王潇，周青，陈茜，等. 超声破坏SonoVue微泡介导Ang-1基因的体外体内转染[J]. 中华超声影像学杂志，2012, 21(1): 65-70. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4477.2012.01.023.
[10]	崔晶晶，周青，曹省，等. 超声靶向破坏微泡联合核定位信号肽增强基因转染治疗犬心肌梗死的实验研究[J]. 中华超声影像学杂志，2017, 26(2): 159-164. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4477.2017.02.018.
[11]	Vancraeynest D, Havaux X, Pasquet A, et al. Myocardial injury induced by ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction: evidence for the contribution of myocardial ischemia[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2009, 35(4): 672-679. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2008.10.005.
[12]	许杨青，陈欣林，谢明星，等. 大鼠胎盘超声造影灌注特征和生物效应的初步研究[J]. 中国医学影像技术，2008, 24(1): 5-8. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:1003-3289.2008.01.002.
[13]	Yasui K, Lee J, Tuziuti T, et al. Influence of the bubble-bubble interaction on destruction of encapsulated microbubbles under ultrasound[J]. J Acoust Soc Am, 2009, 126(3): 973-982. DOI: 10.1121/1.3179677.
[14]	郭辉，李安华，刘隆忠，等. 高频条件下(7MHz) SonoVue与Sonazoid剂量变化对兔肝造影效能的比较[J/CD]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2011, 8(3): 482-489. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2011.03.005.
[15]	杨琛，彭婵娟. 超声造影定量评价体系及其影响因素分析[J]. 中国肿瘤，2016, 25(3): 212-218. DOI: 10.11735/j.issn.1004-0242.2016.03.A012.

[1]	Shujie Wei, Pinjing Hui, Yafang Ding, Bai Zhang, Yanhong Yan, Peng Zhou, Yabo Huang. Evaluation of cerebral hemodynamics in patients with unilateral internal carotid artery occlusion undergoing superficial temporal artery-middle cerebral artery bypass[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2023, 20(10): 1046-1055.
[2]	Xuan Zhang, Yutong Ma, Yuqian Miao, Yun Zhang, Shiwen Wu, Xiaochu Dang, Yingying Chen, Zhaoming Zhong, Xuejuan Wang, Miao Hu, Yanfeng Sun, Xiuzhu Ma, Faqin Lyu, Haiyan Kou. Ultrasound assessment of diaphragm function in pediatric patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2023, 20(10): 1068-1073.
[3]	Lei Ding, Wen Luo, Xiao Yang, Lina Pang, Peidi Zhang, Haijing Liu, Jiani Yuan, Jin Liu. Application of high-frame-rate contrast-enhanced ultrasound in evaluation of imaging features of C-TIRADS 4-5 thyroid nodules[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2023, 20(09): 887-894.
[4]	Lianhua Zhu, Xiang Fei, Peng Han, Bo Jiang, Nan Li, Yukun Luo. Value of high frame rate contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differential diagnosis of gallbladder polyp lesions[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2023, 20(09): 904-910.
[5]	Weiping Zhang, Jingling Wang, Zhixing Liu, Li Chen, Fangqun Chen. Characteristics of time-intensity curve of high-frame-rate contrast-enhanced ultrasound in clear cell renal cell carcinoma[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2023, 20(09): 916-922.
[6]	Meifang Zhang, Ying Tan, Qiaozhen Zhu, Xin Wen, Ying Yuan, Yue Qin, Hongbo Guo, Lingxiu Hou, Wenlan Huang, Guiyan Peng, Shengli Li. Artificial intelligence-based quality control of mid-sagittal plane ultrasound images for first trimester fetal crown-rump length[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2023, 20(09): 945-950.
[7]	Ruina Zhao, Yuxin Jiang, Tao Chen, Li Zhang, Cheng Chen, Siqi Jin, Xueqi Chen, Xiao Yang, Jianchu Li. Present status and reform demands of continuing medical education for ultrasonic physicians in Beijing[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2023, 20(09): 966-973.
[8]	Yuhan Zhou, Huan Xiao, Chunjiang Yang, Juan Zhou, Lirong Zhu, Juan Xu, Fangting Mou. Diagnostic value of ultrasound in children with temporary hip synovitis[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2023, 20(08): 795-800.
[9]	Huanyan Liu, Yang Hua, Lingyun Jia, Xinyu Zhao, Beibei Liu. Lumen structure and hemodynamic characteristics of occluded internal carotid artery[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2023, 20(08): 809-815.
[10]	Lianlian Zhang, Pinjing Hui, Yafang Ding. Clinical value of carotid Doppler ultrasonography in assessing vulnerability of atherosclerotic plaques[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2023, 20(08): 816-821.
[11]	Yaping Jia, Shu'e Zeng. Ultrasound and pathological characteristics of breast metaplastic carcinoma containing squamous cell carcinoma components[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2023, 20(08): 844-848.
[12]	Hanyu Wang, Sike Zhang, Yu Zhang, Xin Wan, Qiuxia He, Mingming Li, Xiuhua Yang. Application value of intraoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasound in surgical resection of glioma[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2023, 20(07): 755-760.
[13]	Gang Luo, Silin Pan, Taotao Chen, Qian Xu, Zhixian Ji, Sibao Wang, Lingyu Sun. Application of echocardiography in fetal cardiac intervention of pulmonary atresia with intact ventricular septum[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2023, 20(06): 605-609.
[14]	Jia Huang, Hua Shi, Yuguo Zhang, Jiaqi Hu, Qian Chen. Ultrasonographic features of normal and abnormal fetal left brachiocephalic vein and their clinical significance[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2023, 20(06): 610-617.
[15]	Ze Yuan, Li Zhuang. Value of ultrasound detection of fetal umbilical artery and middle cerebral artery blood flow in diagnosis of fetal intrauterine distress[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2023, 20(06): 618-621.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export