Diagnostic ultrasound ( PDFDrive )

52 PART I Physics
70. Hwang JH, Tu J, Brayman AA, et al. Correlation between inertial cavitation
dose and endothelial cell damage in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol.
2006;32(10):1611-1619.
71. van Der Wouw PA, Brauns AC, Bailey SE, et al. Premature ventricular
contractions during triggered imaging with ultrasound contrast. J Am Soc
Echocardiogr. 2000;13(4):288-294.
72. Tran TA, Le Guennec JY, Babuty D, et al. On the mechanisms of ultrasound
contrast agents-induced arrhythmias. Ultrasound Med Biol.
2009;35(6):1050-1056.
73. Tran TA, Le Guennec JY, Bougnoux P, et al. Characterization of cell membrane
response to ultrasound activated microbubbles. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr
Freq Control. 2008;55(1):43-49.
74. Tran TA, Roger S, Le Guennec JY, et al. Efect of ultrasound-activated
microbubbles on the cell electrophysiological properties. Ultrasound Med
Biol. 2007;33(1):158-163.
75. Kurt M, Shaikh KA, Peterson L, et al. Impact of contrast echocardiography
on evaluation of ventricular function and clinical management in a large
prospective cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53(9):802-810.
76. Abdelmoneim SS, Bernier M, Scott CG, et al. Safety of contrast agent use
during stress echocardiography: a 4-year experience from a single-center
cohort study of 26,774 patients. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;2(9):
1048-1056.
77. Grayburn PA. Product safety compromises patient safety (an unjustiied
black box warning on ultrasound contrast agents by the Food and Drug
Administration). Am J Cardiol. 2008;101(6):892-893.
78. Kusnetzky LL, Khalid A, Khumri TM, et al. Acute mortality in hospitalized
patients undergoing echocardiography with and without an ultrasound
contrast agent: results in 18,671 consecutive studies. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2008;51(17):1704-1706.
79. Main ML, Ryan AC, Davis TE, et al. Acute mortality in hospitalized patients
undergoing echocardiography with and without an ultrasound contrast
agent (multicenter registry results in 4,300,966 consecutive patients). Am
J Cardiol. 2008;102(12):1742-1746.
80. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM). Statement on
mammalian biological efects in tissues with gas body contrast agents. Laurel,
MD: AIUM; 2015. Available from: http://www.aium.org/oicialStatements/25.
Approved March 25, 2015. Cited October 7, 2016.
81. Barnett SB. Safe use of ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol.
2007;33(2):171-172.
82. Miller D. he safe use of contrast-enhanced diagnostic ultrasound. In: ter
Haar G, editor. he safe use of ultrasound in medical diagnosis. London,
England: British Institute of Radiology; 2012. p. 105-124.
83. Nightingale KR, Church CC, Harris G, et al. Conditionally increased acoustic
pressures in nonfetal diagnostic ultrasound examinations without contrast
agents: a preliminary assessment. J Ultrasound Med. 2015;34(7):1-41.
84. Apfel RE, Holland CK. Gauging the likelihood of cavitation from short-pulse,
low-duty cycle diagnostic ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1991;17(2):
179-185.
85. Dalecki D, Raeman CH, Child SZ, Carstensen EL. A test for cavitation as
a mechanism for intestinal hemorrhage in mice exposed to a piezoelectric
lithotripter. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1996;22(4):493-496.
86. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM). Statement on mammalian
biological efects in tissues with naturally occurring gas bodies. Laurel,
MD: AIUM; 2015. Available from: http://www.aium.org/oicialStatements/6.
Approved March 25, 2015. Cited October 7, 2016.
87. Miller DL, Dou C, Raghavendran K. Anesthetic techniques inluence the
induction of pulmonary capillary hemorrhage during diagnostic ultrasound
scanning in rats. J Ultrasound Med. 2015;34(2):289-297.
88. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM). Medical ultrasound
safety. 3rd ed. Rockville, MD: AIUM; 2014.
89. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM). Prudent use and
clinical safety. Laurel, MD: AIUM; 2012. Available from: http://www.aium.org/
oicialStatements/34. Approved April 1, 2012. Cited October 7, 2016.
90. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM). Prudent use in
pregnancy. Laurel, MD: AIUM; 2012. Available from: http://www.aium.org/
oicialStatements/33. Approved April 1, 2012. Cited October 7, 2016.
91. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM). Safety in training
and research. Laurel, MD: AIUM; 2012. Available from: http://www.aium.org/
oicialStatements/36. Approved April 1, 2012. Cited October 7, 2016.
92. Ziskin MC, Petitti DB. Epidemiology of human exposure to ultrasound: a
critical review. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1988;14(2):91-96.
93. Abramowicz JS, Fowlkes JB, Skelly AC, et al. Conclusions regarding epidemiology
for obstetric ultrasound. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27(4):637-644.
94. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM). Conclusions regarding
epidemiology for obstetric ultrasound. Laurel, MD: AIUM; 2010. Available
from: http://www.aium.org/oicialStatements/16. Approved 27 March 2010.
Cited 7 October 2016.
95. Environment Health Directorate (EHD). Canada-wide survey of nonionizing
radiation emitting medical devices. II. Ultrasound devices. Department of
National Health and Welfare, Environmental Health Directorate, Report
80-EHD-53. Ottawa, Canada: 1980.
96. Ziskin MC. Survey of patient exposure to diagnostic ultrasound. In: Reid
JM, Sikov MR, editors. Interaction of ultrasound and biological tissues.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare; 1972.
p. 203.
97. Moore Jr R, Barrick M, Hamilton P. Efects of sonic radiation on growth
and development. Am J Epidemiol. 1982;116.
98. Stark CR, Orleans M, Haverkamp AD, Murphy J. Short- and long-term
risks ater exposure to diagnostic ultrasound in utero. Obstet Gynecol.
1984;63(2):194-200.
99. Scheidt PC, Stanley F, Bryla DA. One-year follow-up of infants exposed to
ultrasound in utero. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978;131(7):743-748.
100. Bakketeig LS, Eik-Nes SH, Jacobsen G, et al. Randomised controlled trial
of ultrasonographic screening in pregnancy. Lancet. 1984;2(8396):
207-211.
101. Eik-Nes SH, Okland O, Aure JC, Ulstein M. Ultrasound screening in
pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1984;1(8390):1347.
102. Hill AB. he environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R
Soc Med. 1965;58:295-300.
103. Newnham JP, Evans SF, Michael CA, et al. Efects of frequent ultrasound
during pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1993;342(8876):
887-891.
104. Campbell JD, Elford RW, Brant RF. Case-control study of prenatal ultrasonography
exposure in children with delayed speech. CMAJ.
1993;149(10):1435-1440.
105. Salvesen KA, Vatten LJ, Bakketeig LS, Eik-Nes SH. Routine ultrasonography
in utero and speech development. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1994;4(2):
101-103.
106. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA statement on fetal keepsake
videos. 2015. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/
AlertsandNotices/PatientAlerts/ucm064756.htm. Updated May 12, 2015.
Cited October 7, 2016.
107. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine (AIUM). Keepsake fetal
imaging. 2012. Available from: http://www.aium.org/oicialStatements/31.
Approved April 1, 2012. Cited October 7, 2016.
108. American Medical Association (AMA). E-8.062: Sale of non-health-related
goods from physician’s oices. Chicago, IL: AMA; 1998.
109. American Medical Association (AMA). E-8.063: Sale of health-related
products from physician’s oices. Chicago, IL: AMA; 1999.
110. American Medical Association (AMA). Addendum III: Council on Ethical
and Judicial Afairs clariication on sale of products from physicians’ oices
(E-8062 and E-8.063). Chicago, IL: AMA; 2000.
111. ACOG Committee on Ethics. Commercial enterprises in medical practice.
ACOG Committee Opinion No. 359. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:243-245.