Counter-propagating wave interaction for contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging

Most techniques for contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging require linear propagation to detect nonlinear scattering of contrast agent microbubbles. Waveform distortion due to nonlinear propagation impairs their ability to distinguish microbubbles from tissue. As a result, tissue can be misclassified as microbubbles, and contrast agent concentration can be overestimated; therefore, these artifacts can significantly impair the quality of medical diagnoses. Contrary to biological tissue, lipid-coated gas microbubbles used as a contrast agent allow the interaction of two acoustic waves propagating in opposite directions (counter-propagation). Based on that principle, we describe a strategy to detect microbubbles that is free from nonlinear propagation artifacts. In vitro images were acquired with an ultrasound scanner in a phantom of tissue-mimicking material with a cavity containing a contrast agent. Unlike the default mode of the scanner using amplitude modulation to detect microbubbles, the pulse sequence exploiting counter-propagating wave interaction creates no pseudoenhancement behind the cavity in the contrast image.

[1]  Nico de Jong,et al.  Characterizing the subharmonic response of phospholipid-coated microbubbles for carotid imaging. , 2011, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[2]  V. Gusev,et al.  Interaction of counterpropagating acoustic waves in media with nonlinear dissipation and in hysteretic media , 1999 .

[3]  B. Goldberg,et al.  Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Imaging: State of the Art , 2005 .

[4]  J. Zagzebski,et al.  Pressure-dependent attenuation in ultrasound contrast agents. , 2002, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[5]  Nico de Jong,et al.  Far-wall pseudoenhancement during contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the carotid arteries: clinical description and in vitro reproduction. , 2012, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[6]  Moreschi Helene,et al.  Characterization of nonlinear viscoelastic properties of Ultrasound Contrast Agents , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium.

[7]  Meng-Xing Tang,et al.  Frequency and pressure dependent attenuation and scattering by microbubbles. , 2007, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[8]  C. Chin,et al.  Pulse inversion Doppler: a new method for detecting nonlinear echoes from microbubble contrast agents , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[9]  Detlef Lohse,et al.  A model for large amplitude oscillations of coated bubbles accounting for buckling and rupture , 2005 .

[10]  N de Jong,et al.  Effect of self-demodulation on the subharmonic response of contrast agent microbubbles , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  Otto Kamp,et al.  Myocardial contrast echocardiography evolving as a clinically feasible technique for accurate, rapid, and safe assessment of myocardial perfusion: the evidence so far. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[12]  Dan Adam,et al.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging of the vasa vasorum: from early atherosclerosis to the identification of unstable plaques. , 2010, JACC. Cardiovascular imaging.

[13]  J. Bosch,et al.  In vitro comparative study of the performance of pulse sequences for ultrasound contrast imaging of the carotid artery , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium.

[14]  B. Angelsen,et al.  Contrast imaging by non-overlapping dual frequency band transmit pulse complexes , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[15]  Ross Williams,et al.  Pseudoenhancement within the local ablation zone of hepatic tumors due to a nonlinear artifact on contrast-enhanced ultrasound. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  D. May,et al.  Nondestructive subharmonic imaging , 2002, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[17]  J. Gorce,et al.  Influence of Bubble Size Distribution on the Echogenicity of Ultrasound Contrast Agents: A Study of SonoVue™ , 2000, Investigative radiology.

[18]  Ankur Thapar,et al.  Dose-dependent artifact in the far wall of the carotid artery at dynamic contrast-enhanced US. , 2012, Radiology.

[19]  A. Bouakaz,et al.  Pulse subtraction time delay imaging method for ultrasound contrast agent detection , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[20]  O. Standal,et al.  SURF imaging: In vivo demonstration of an ultrasound contrast agent detection technique , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[21]  A. Bouakaz,et al.  Contrast agent response to chirp reversal: simulations, optical observations, and acoustical verification , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.

[22]  Meng-Xing Tang,et al.  Effects of nonlinear propagation in ultrasound contrast agent imaging. , 2010, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[23]  Nico de Jong,et al.  Subharmonic behavior of phospholipid-coated ultrasound contrast agent microbubbles. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  F Stuart Foster,et al.  Micro-ultrasound for preclinical imaging , 2011, Interface Focus.

[25]  K V Ramnarine,et al.  Development of an example flow test object and comparison of five of these test objects, constructed in various laboratories. , 1998, Ultrasonics.

[26]  Nico de Jong,et al.  Contrast Harmonic Intravascular Ultrasound: A Feasibility Study for Vasa Vasorum Imaging , 2006, Investigative radiology.

[27]  Nico de Jong,et al.  Pressure-dependent attenuation and scattering of phospholipid-coated microbubbles at low acoustic pressures. , 2009, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.