Diagnostic ultrasound ( PDFDrive )

72 PART I Physics
46. Hamilton MF, Blackstock DT, editors. Nonlinear acoustics. San Diego:
Academic Press; 1998.
47. Averkiou MA, Roundhill DN, Powers JE. A new imaging technique based
on the nonlinear properties of tissues. Proc IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium;
1997;(2):1561-1566.
48. Burns PN, Hope Simpson D, Averkiou MA. Nonlinear imaging. Ultrasound
Med Biol. 2000;26(Suppl. 1):S19-S22.
49. Ortega D, Burns PN, Hope Simpson D, Wilson SR. Tissue harmonic imaging:
is it a beneit for bile duct sonography? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(3):
653-659.
50. Averkiou MA, Powers JE, Burns PN, et al. Ultrasonic tissue harmonic
imaging. US Patent 6,251,074. 2001.
51. Burns PN, Wilson SR, Muradali D, et al. Microbubble destruction is the
origin of harmonic signals from FS069. Radiology. 1996;201:158.
52. Hope Simpson D, Chin C, Burns P. Pulse inversion Doppler: a new method
for detecting nonlinear echoes from microbubble contrast agents. IEEE
Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 1999;46(2):372-382.
53. Burns PN, Wilson SR, Simpson DH. Pulse inversion imaging of liver blood
low: improved method for characterizing focal masses with microbubble
contrast. Invest Radiol. 2000;35(1):58-71.
54. Tiemann K, Lohmeier S, Kuntz S, et al. Real-Time contrast echo assessment
of myocardial perfusion at low emission power: irst experimental and
clinical results using power pulse inversion imaging. Echocardiography.
1999;16(8):799-809.
55. Tremblay-Darveau C, Williams R, Milot L, et al. Combined perfusion and
Doppler imaging using plane-wave nonlinear detection and microbubble
contrast agents. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2014;61(12):
1988-2000.
56. homas DH, Butler MB, Anderson T, et al. Single microbubble response
using pulse sequences: initial results. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009;35(1):
112-119.
57. Eckersley RJ, Chin CT, Burns PN. Optimising phase and amplitude modulation
schemes for imaging microbubble contrast agents at low acoustic power.
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2005;31(2):213-219.
58. Wilson SR, Jang HJ, Kim TK, et al. Real-time temporal maximum-intensityprojection
imaging of hepatic lesions with contrast-enhanced sonography.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(3):691-695.
59. Kim TK, Jang HJ, Burns PN, et al. Focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatic
adenoma: diferentiation with low-mechanical-index contrast-enhanced
sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(1):58-66.
60. Dayton PA, Morgan KE, Klibanov AL, et al. Optical and acoustical observations
of the efects of ultrasound on contrast agents. IEEE Trans Ultrason
Ferroelectr Freq Control. 1999;46(1):220-232.
61. de Jong N, Frinking PJ, Bouakaz A, et al. Optical imaging of contrast agent
microbubbles in an ultrasound ield with a 100-MHz camera. Ultrasound
Med Biol. 2000;26(3):487-492.
62. Uhlendorf V, Scholle FD. Imaging of spatial distribution and low of
microbubbles using nonlinear acoustic properties. Acoust Imaging.
1996;22:233-238.
63. Becher H, Burns P. Handbook of contrast echocardiography: let
ventricle function and myocardial perfusion. New York: Springer;
2000.
64. Porter TR, Xie F. Transient myocardial contrast ater initial exposure to
diagnostic ultrasound pressures with minute doses of intravenously injected
microbubbles. Demonstration and potential mechanisms. Circulation.
1995;92(9):2391-2395.
65. Burns PN. Interpretation of Doppler ultrasound signals. In: Burns PN,
Taylor KJ, Wells PNT, editors. Clinical applications of Doppler ultrasound.
2nd ed. New York: Raven Press; 1996.
66. Masugata H, Peters B, Laitte S, et al. Quantitative assessment of myocardial
perfusion during graded coronary stenosis by real-time myocardial contrast
echo reilling curves. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37(1):262-269.
67. Wei K, Jayaweera AR, Firoozan S, et al. Quantiication of myocardial blood
low with ultrasound-induced destruction of microbubbles administered
as a constant venous infusion. Circulation. 1998;97(5):473-483.
68. Hudson JM, Karshaian R, Burns PN. Quantiication of low using ultrasound
and microbubbles: a disruption replenishment model based on physical
principles. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2009;35(12):2007-2020.
69. Kerbel R, Folkman J. Clinical translation of angiogenesis inhibitors. Nat
Rev Cancer. 2002;2(10):727-739.
70. Goertz DE, Yu JL, Kerbel RS, et al. High-frequency Doppler ultrasound
monitors the efects of antivascular therapy on tumor blood low. Cancer
Res. 2002;62(22):6371-6375.
71. Lassau N, Lamuraglia M, Vanel D, et al. Doppler US with perfusion sotware
and contrast medium injection in the early evaluation of isolated limb
perfusion of limb sarcomas: prospective study of 49 cases. Ann Oncol.
2005;16(7):1054-1060.
72. Lassau N, Lamuraglia M, Chami L, et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors
treated with imatinib: monitoring response with contrast-enhanced
sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(5):1267-1273.
73. Eggermont AM. Evolving imaging technology: contrast-enhanced Doppler
ultrasound is early and rapid predictor of tumour response. Ann Oncol.
2005;16(7):995-996.
74. Weskott HP. Emerging roles for contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Clin
Hemorheol Microcirc. 2008;40(1):51-71.
75. Hudson JM, Williams R, Tremblay-Darveau C, et al. Dynamic contrast
enhanced ultrasound for therapy monitoring. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(9):
1650-1657.
76. Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice
recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver—
update 2012: a WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives
of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultrasound Med Biol.
2013;39(2):187-210.
77. Hynynen K, McDannold N, Vykhodtseva N, et al. Focal disruption of the
blood-brain barrier due to 260-kHz ultrasound bursts: a method for molecular
imaging and targeted drug delivery. J Neurosurg. 2006;105(3):445-454.
78. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM). Mechanical bioefects
from diagnostic ultrasound: AIUM consensus statements. J Ultrasound
Med. 2000;19:120-142.
79. Brennen C. Cavitation and bubble dynamics. New York: Oxford University
Press; 1995.
80. Plesset MS. he dynamics of cavitation bubbles. J Appl Mech.
1949;16:272-282.
81. Poritsky H, editor. he collapse or growth of a spherical bubble or cavity
in a viscous luid. First US National Congress on Applied Mechanics; 1951.
82. Williams AR, Kubowicz G, Cramer E, Schlief R. he efects of the microbubble
suspension SH U 454 (Echovist) on ultrasound-induced cell lysis in a rotating
tube exposure system. Echocardiography. 1991;8(4):423-433.
83. Miller DL, homas RM. Ultrasound contrast agents nucleate inertial cavitation
in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1995;21(8):1059-1065.
84. Miller MW, Miller DL, Brayman AA. A review of in vitro bioefects of
inertial ultrasonic cavitation from a mechanistic perspective. Ultrasound
Med Biol. 1996;22(9):1131-1154.
85. Miller DL, Gies RA, Chrisler WB. Ultrasonically induced hemolysis at high
cell and gas body concentrations in a thin-disc exposure chamber. Ultrasound
Med Biol. 1997;23(4):625-633.
86. Holland CK, Roy RA, Apfel RE, Crum LA. In vitro detection of cavitation
induced by a diagnostic ultrasound system. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr
Freq Control. 1992;39(1):95-101.
87. Everbach EC, Makin IR, Francis CW, Meltzer RS. Efect of acoustic cavitation
on platelets in the presence of an echo-contrast agent. Ultrasound Med
Biol. 1998;24(1):129-136.
88. ter Haar GR. Ultrasonic contrast agents: safety considerations reviewed.
Eur J Radiol. 2002;41(3):217-221.
89. Barnett SB, Ter Haar GR, Ziskin MC, et al. International recommendations
and guidelines for the safe use of diagnostic ultrasound in medicine.
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000;26(3):355-366.
90. Bouakaz A, de Jong N. WFUMB safety symposium on echo-contrast agents:
nature and types of ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol.
2007;33(2):187-196.
91. Kitzman DW, Goldman ME, Gillam LD, et al. Eicacy and safety of the
novel ultrasound contrast agent perlutren (Deinity) in patients with
suboptimal baseline let ventricular echocardiographic images. Am J Cardiol.
2000;86(6):669-674.
92. Piscaglia F, Bolondi L, Italian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology
(SIUMB) Study Group on Ultrasound Contrast Agents. he safety of SonoVue