EFSUMB Clinical Safety Statement for Diagnostic Ultrasound – (2019 revision)

Christian Kollmann; Klaus-Vitold Jenderka; Carmel M. Moran; Ferdinando Draghi; J. F. Jimenez Diaz; Ragnar Sande

doi:10.1055/a-1010-6018

Ultraschall in der Medizin - European Journal of Ultrasound, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Ultraschall Med 2020; 41(04): 387-389
DOI: 10.1055/a-1010-6018

Guidelines & Recommendations

EFSUMB Clinical Safety Statement for Diagnostic Ultrasound – (2019 revision)

EFSUMB-Statement über die klinische Sicherheit der Ultraschalldiagnostik – (2019 Revision)

Christian Kollmann

¹Center for Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering, Medical University Vienna, Austria

,

Klaus-Vitold Jenderka

²Department of Engineering and Natural Sciences, University of Applied Sciences, Merseburg, Germany

,

Carmel M. Moran

³University-BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, Edinburgh-University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

,

Ferdinando Draghi

⁴Institute of Radiology, University of Pavia, IRCCS-Foundation, San Matteo Medical Center, Pavia, Italy

,

J. F. Jimenez Diaz

⁵Castilla La Mancha University Education Faculty of Toledo – Sport Sciences Faculty Toledo, Castilla La Mancha, Spain

⁶UCAM – Sport Medicine Department Murcia, Murcia, Spain

,

Ragnar Sande

⁷Stavanger University Hospital – Department of obstetrics and gynecology, Stavanger, Norway

⁸University of Bergen – Department of clinical science, Bergen, Hordaland, Norway

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

This document is the updated 2019 revision of the EFSUMB Clinically Safety Statement. A Safety Statement has been published by EFSUMB annually since 1994 by the Safety Committee (ECMUS) of the federation. The text is deliberately brief and gives a concise overview of safety in the use of diagnostic ultrasound.

Zusammenfassung

Dieses Dokument ist die 2019 aktualisierte Revision des EFSUMB-Clinically-Safety-Statements. Diese Stellungnahme zur Sicherheit wird von der EFSUMB seit 1994 jährlich durch das Sicherheitskomitee (ECMUS) der EFSUMB veröffentlicht. Der Text ist bewusst kurz gehalten und gibt einen prägnanten Überblick über die Sicherheit bei Anwendung des diagnostischen Ultraschalls.

Key words

ultrasound - safety - recommendation

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Miller DL, Dong Z, Dou C. et al. Pulmonary Capillary Hemorrhage Induced by Different Imaging Modes of Diagnostic Ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2018; 44: 1012-1021 . doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.11.00
2 Ang Jr ES, Gluncic V, Duque A. et al. Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006; 103: 12903-12910 . doi:10.1073/pnas.0605294103
3 Sande RK, Matre K, Eide GE. et al. Ultrasound safety in early pregnancy: reduced energy setting does not compromise obstetric Doppler measurements. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 39: 438-443 . doi:10.1002/uog.10148
4 ECMUS. Thermal (TI) and Mechanical (MI) Indices. Tutorial (2011). http://www.efsumb.org/safety/resources/thermal_mechanical_indices_explanation.pdf
5 ECMUS. Doppler ultrasound devises – safety aspects. Tutorial (2011). http://www.efsumb.org/safety/resources/doppler_ultrasound_safety_aspects_2011update.pdf
6 ECMUS. Best practice guidance for the safe use of Doppler ultrasound (2019). http://www.efsumb.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-doppler_bestpractice.pdf
7 ECMUS. Elastography – safety aspects. Tutorial (2014). http://www.efsumb.org/safety/resources/elastography_safety_aspects.pdf
8 ECMUS. Statement on the safe use of Doppler Ultrasound during scans at 11–14 weeks (or earlier in pregnancy). Consensus Statement (update 2019). http://www.efsumb.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-first_trimester_doppler_statement-1.pdf
9 ECMUS. Neonatal cranial ultrasound – safety aspects. Tutorial (2013). http://www.efsumb.org/safety/resources/neonatal_cranial_ultrasound_safety_aspects.pdf
10 Harris GR. Safety Considerations for Diagnostic Ultrasound in the Eye. J Ultrasound Med 2019; 38: 1163-1165 . doi:10.1002/jum.14977
11 Miller DL, Averkiou MA, Brayman AA. et al. Bioeffects considerations for diagnostic ultrasound contrast agents. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27: 611-632 . doi:10.7863/jum.2008.27.4.611
12 Hynynen K, McDannold N, Martin H. et al. The threshold for brain damage in rabbits induced by bursts of ultrasound in the presence of an ultrasound contrast agent (Optison®). Ultrasound in Med & Biol 2003; 29: 473-481 . doi:10.1016/S0301-5629(02)00741-X
13 Sidhu PS, Cantisani V, Daganello A. et al. Role of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in Paediatric Practice: An EFSUMB Position Statement. Ultraschall in Med 2017; 38: 33-43 . doi:10.1055/s-0042-110394
14 Sidhu PS, Cantisani V, Dietrich CF. et al. The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations for the Clinical Practice of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in Non-Hepatic Applications: Update 2017 (Long Version). Ultraschall in Med 2018; 39: e2-e44 . doi:10.1055/a-0586-1107
15 Albrecht T, Leen E, Blomley M. et al. Guidelines for the use of contrast agents in Ultrasound (January 2004). Ultraschall in Med 2004; 25: 249-256 . doi:10.1055/s-2004-813245
16 Mornstein V. Cavitation-induced risks associated with contrast agents used in ultrasonography. European Journal of Ultrasound 1997; 5: 101-111
17 Rott HD. EFSUMB statement on the clinical safety of ultrasound diagnostis. Ultraschall in Med 1996; 17: 257-258
18 EFSUMB. Clinical safety statement for diagnsotic ultrasound – 2008. EFSUMB Newsletter issue 5. Ultraschall in Med 2008; 29: 552 . doi:10.1055/s-0028-1098034