Impact of ultrasound enhancing agents on clinical management

Multi-societal expert consensus statement on the safe administration of ultrasound contrast agents

Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) offers a safe, reliable imaging option to establish a clinical diagnosis across a variety of multidisciplinary settings. This Expert Consensus Statement serves to outline expert opinion on what constitutes appropriate supervision and the essential components of safe CEUS practice. The purpose of this document is to empower institutions to allow sonographers, along with other trained medical professionals, to administer UCAs at the point of care, consistent with the updated scope of practice documentation and within the broad parameters of an individual's training and licensure, while subject to appropriate supervision and meeting or exceeding minimum safety standards. This guidance was developed by the International Contrast Ultrasound Society and endorsed by the following organizations that represent ultrasound professionals: the British Society of Echocardiography, the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, the Society of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, the Society for Pediatric Radiology, the World Federation of Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, the Brazilian College of Radiology, the Joint Review Committee for Diagnostic Medical Sonography, the Chinese Ultrasound Doctors Association, and the American Society of Neuroimaging. Additionally, this guidance document was affirmed or supported by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Association for Medical Ultrasound, and the Society for Vascular Ultrasound.

Ultrasound enhancing agents in cardiovascular imaging: expanding horizons beyond coronary arteries

From its inception as a two-dimensional snapshot of the beating heart, echocardiography has become an indelible part of cardiovascular diagnostics. The integration of ultrasound enhancing agents (UEAs) marks a pivotal transition, enhancing its diagnostic acumen beyond myocardial perfusion. These agents have refined echocardiography's capacity to visualize complex cardiac anatomy and pathology with unprecedented clarity, especially in non-coronary artery disease contexts. UEAs aid in detailed assessments of myocardial viability, endocardial border delineation in left ventricular opacification, and identification of intracardiac masses. Recent innovations in UEAs, accompanied by advancements in echocardiographic technology, offer clinicians a more nuanced view of cardiac function and blood flow dynamics. This review explores recent developments in these applications and future contemplated studies.

Validation of administrative claims to identify ultrasound enhancing agent use

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound enhancing agents (UEAs) are an invaluable adjunct to stress and transthoracic echocardiography (STE) to improve left ventricular visualization. Despite multiple single center studies evaluating UEA use, investigation into the rates, sources of variation, and outcomes of UEA use on a national level in the United States (US) has been limited by lack of validation of UEA codes for claims analyses.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study, 2019-2022, using linked multicenter electronic medical record (EMR) data from > 30 health systems linked to all-payor claims data representing > 90% of the US population. Individuals receiving STE in both EMR and claims data on the same day during the study window were included. UEA receipt as identified by presence of a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) or National Drug Code (NDC) for UEA use within 1-day of the index STE event. We evaluated the performance of claims to identify UEA use, using EMR data as the gold standard, stratified by inpatient and outpatient status.

RESULTS

Amongst 54,525 individuals receiving STE in both EMR and claims data, 12,853 (23.6%) had a UEA claim in EMR, 10,461 (19.2%) had a UEA claim in claims, and 9140 (16.8%) had a UEA claim in both within the 1-day window. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive, and negative predictive values for UEA claims were 71.1%, 96.8%, 90.8%, 87.4%. and 91.6% respectively. However, amongst inpatients, the sensitivity of UEA claims was substantially lower (6.8%) compared to outpatients (79.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

While the overall accuracy of claims to identify UEA use was high, there was substantial under-capture of UEA use by claims amongst inpatients. These results call into question published rates of UEA use amongst inpatients in studies using administrative claims, and highlight ongoing need to improve inpatient coding for UEA use.