PD23-11 CATHETER-FREE BLADDER PHANTOM PRESSURE MEASUREMENT-COMPARISON STUDY OF COMMERCIAL ULTRASOUND CONTRAST AGENTS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023PD23-11 CATHETER-FREE BLADDER PHANTOM PRESSURE MEASUREMENT-COMPARISON STUDY OF COMMERCIAL ULTRASOUND CONTRAST AGENTS Kourosh Kalayeh, J. Brian Fowlkes, Amy Chen, Sophia Yeras, Mario L. Fabiilli, William W. Schultz, and Bryan S. Sack Kourosh KalayehKourosh Kalayeh More articles by this author , J. Brian FowlkesJ. Brian Fowlkes More articles by this author , Amy ChenAmy Chen More articles by this author , Sophia YerasSophia Yeras More articles by this author , Mario L. FabiilliMario L. Fabiilli More articles by this author , William W. SchultzWilliam W. Schultz More articles by this author , and Bryan S. SackBryan S. Sack More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003296.11AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Measuring voiding bladder pressure is a major challenge in urodynamic testing. The indwelling urethral catheter blocks flow of urine, causing elevated pressures and lower flow. We previously have shown that ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) can reliably estimate bladder phantom pressures (BPP), through a technique called subharmonic-aided pressure estimation (SHAPE). We hypothesize that SHAPE performance in measuring BPP varies by UCA formulation. METHODS: Four different UCAs were considered (DEFINITY, Lumason, Sonazoid, and OPTISON). Each UCA was diluted in 0.9% normal saline and infused into the bladder phantom using cystometrogram (CMG) equipment (30 mL/min). For each UCA, simultaneous with pressurization, the UCA subharmonic (SH) signal was acquired with a GE LOGIQ E10 ultrasound scanner equipped with SHAPE. This was performed during infusion–filling event–and two post-filling events–PF1: immediately after infusion, and PF2: 5 min later. The change in BPP and SH signal were correlated and a linear regression model (lrm) was used to find the SHAPE sensitivity in dB/cmH2O. The UCA performances were compared in terms of i) SH signal longevity, ii) linear correlation of lrm, iii) sensitivity for BPP measurement, and iv) accuracy–root mean square error of lrm. RESULTS: SHAPE performance is summarized in Table 1. DEFINITY and Lumason show better performance, see examples of Figure 1. For every UCA (except OPTISON) SHAPE sensitivity showed time-dependent behavior. No statistically significant difference was found between SHAPE sensitivities of different CMG events for Lumason. For DEFINITY and Sonazoid SHAPE sensitivity for PF2 was significantly higher than the filling event. CONCLUSIONS: For every UCA and CMG event the SH signal decreases with increase in BPP. As hypothesized, SHAPE performance is dependent on the UCA. These findings will help in UCA selection for further evaluation of this method in human subjects and taking the next steps toward developing a catheter-free voiding bladder pressure measurement using SHAPE. Source of Funding: This research has been partially supported by grants from The Societies for Pediatric Urology (SPU), the University of Michigan Mcubed program, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR), and the Departments of Urology and Radiology at the University of Michigan. The support for ultrasound scanner used in this study (GE LOGIQ E10) comes from General Electric Healthcare (Wauwatosa, WI, USA) © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e676 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Kourosh Kalayeh More articles by this author J. Brian Fowlkes More articles by this author Amy Chen More articles by this author Sophia Yeras More articles by this author Mario L. Fabiilli More articles by this author William W. Schultz More articles by this author Bryan S. Sack More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...