Skip to main content
Log in

Contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography phantom study: intravenous iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast agents may cause false-negative results in assessment of vesicoureteral reflux in children

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography (ce-VUS) is commonly requested simultaneously to other diagnostic imaging necessitating intravenous contrast agents. To date there is limited knowldedge about intravesical interactions between different types of contrast agents.

Objective

To assess the effect of excreted intravenous iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast agents on the intravesical distribution of ultrasound contrast within contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography.

Materials and methods

Iodinated (iomeprol, iopamidol) and gadolinium-based (gadoterate meglumine) contrast agents were diluted to bladder concentration and injected into balloons filled with saline solution. CT scans were performed to assess the contrast distribution in these phantoms. Regions of interest were placed at the top and bottom side of each balloon and Hounsfield units (HU) were measured. Three other balloons were filled with saline solution and contrast media likewise. The ultrasound contrast agent sulphur hexafluoride was added and its distribution was assessed using sonography.

Results

MDCT scans showed a separation of two liquid layers in all bladder phantoms with the contrast layers located at the bottom and the saline solution at the top. Significant differences of the HU measurements at the top and bottom side were observed (P < 0.001–0.007). Following injection of ultrasound contrast agent, US showed its distribution exclusively among the saline solution.

Conclusions

False-negative results of contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography may occur if it is performed shortly after imaging procedures requiring intravenous contrast.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Darge K, Papadopoulou F, Ntoulia A et al (2013) Safety of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in children for non-cardiac applications: a review by the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) and the International Contrast Ultrasound Society (ICUS). Pediatr Radiol 43:1063–1073

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Adeb M, Darge K (2013) Contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography–a feasible modality for the diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux in a developing country. Ethiop Med J 51:153–160

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Duran C, del Riego J, Riera L et al (2012) Voiding urosonography including urethrosonography: high-quality examinations with an optimised procedure using a second-generation US contrast agent. Pediatr Radiol 42:660–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Riccabona M (2012) Application of a second-generation US contrast agent in infants and children–a European questionnaire-based survey. Pediatr Radiol 42:1471–1480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Darge K, Troeger J, Duetting T et al (1999) Reflux in young patients: comparison of voiding US of the bladder and retrovesical space with echo enhancement versus voiding cystourethrography for diagnosis. Radiology 210:201–207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Darge K, Higgins M, Hwang TJ et al (2013) Magnetic resonance and computed tomography in pediatric urology: an imaging overview for current and future daily practice. Radiol Clin North Am 51:583–598

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Darge K (2008) Voiding urosonography with US contrast agents for the diagnosis of vesicoureteric reflux in children. II. Comparison with radiological examinations. Pediatr Radiol 38:54–63, quiz 126–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jost G, Lengsfeld P, Lenhard DC et al (2011) Viscosity of iodinated contrast agents during renal excretion. Eur J Radiol 80:373–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Memarsadeghi M, Riccabona M, Heinz-Peer G (2005) MR urography: principles, examination techniques, indications. Radiologe 45:915–923

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Seeliger E, Becker K, Ladwig M et al (2010) Up to 50-fold increase in urine viscosity with iso-osmolar contrast media in the rat. Radiology 256:406–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. International Reflux Study Committee (1981) Medical versus surgical treatment of primary vesicoureteral reflux: report of the International Reflux Study Committee. Pediatrics 67:392–400

  12. Heikel PE, Parkkulainen KV (1966) Vesico-ureteric reflux in children. A classification and results of conservative treatment. Ann Radiol (Paris) 9:37–40

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Papadopoulou F, Anthopoulou A, Siomou E et al (2009) Harmonic voiding urosonography with a second-generation contrast agent for the diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux. Pediatr Radiol 39:239–244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rosati G (1994) Clinical pharmacology of iomeprol. Eur J Radiol 18:51–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Aime S, Caravan P (2009) Biodistribution of gadolinium-based contrast agents, including gadolinium deposition. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:1259–1267

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Weishaupt D, Köchli VD, Marincek B (2009) Wie funktioniert MRI? Springer Publishing, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all radiology technicians of the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology of the University Hospital Würzburg. Special thanks to Inge Krafft and Ulrike Pytlik for their help with the phantom scans.

Conflicts of interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon Veldhoen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Veldhoen, S., Sauer, A., Gassenmaier, T. et al. Contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography phantom study: intravenous iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast agents may cause false-negative results in assessment of vesicoureteral reflux in children. Pediatr Radiol 45, 862–871 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-014-3243-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-014-3243-2

Keywords

Navigation