Despite limited direct comparative data between the two agents, individual trials demonstrate that both agents improve endocardial border delineation and diagnostic image quality in patients with suboptimal baseline echocardiograms. Reported adverse effects for both agents were generally mild, though one retrospective study reported a significantly higher incidence of severe and critical adverse drug reactions with Lumason® compared to Definity® (see Table 1). In contrast, a separate study ob...
Although not discussing the comparative safety of Lumason and Definity, the updated 2024 American College of Radiology (ACR) Manual on Contrast Media reported that adverse events from either agent are exceedingly rare. The overall adverse event rate reported in older studies was ~2%, and serious hypersensitivity reactions were reported in 0.01% of patients. Most adverse events are mild and likely physiologic in etiology, including symptoms such as headache, a sensation of warmth or flushing, nausea, and altered taste. There were no reports of death. Most severe reactions occur within 30 minutes of administration and can occur on first or subsequent doses. [1]
A 2017 review discussed the safety data of echocardiographic contrast agents (ECAs). Safety studies have included outpatients, hospitalized patients, patients undergoing stress echocardiography, and those with pulmonary hypertension. There have also been safety statements published by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)...
READ MORE→
A search of the published medical literature revealed
2 studies investigating the researchable question:
What is the comparison between Definity and Lumason (including clinical and safety) as cardiac ultrasound contrast?
Level of evidence
C - Multiple studies with limitations or conflicting results
READ MORE→
[1] American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. ACR Manual on Contrast Media. Updated 2024. Accessed July 23, 2024.
[2] Muskula PR, Main ML. Safety with echocardiographic contrast agents. Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging. 2017;10(4):e005459. doi:10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.116.005459
[3] Khawaja OA, Shaikh KA, Al-Mallah MH. Meta-analysis of adverse cardiovascular events associated with echocardiographic contrast agents. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106(5):742-747. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.04.034
[4] Ntoulia A, Anupindi SA, Back SJ, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound: a comprehensive review of safety in children. Pediatr Radiol. 2021;51(12):2161-2180. doi:10.1007/s00247-021-05223-4
[5] Hyvelin JM, Gaud E, Costa M, et al. Characteristics and Echogenicity of Clinical Ultrasound Contrast Agents: An In Vitro and In Vivo Comparison Study. J Ultrasound Med. 2017;36(5):941-953. doi:10.7863/ultra.16.04059
[6] Kitzman DW, Goldman ME, Gillam LD, Cohen JL, Aurigemma GP, Gottdiener JS. Efficacy and safety of the novel ultrasound contrast agent perflutren (definity) in patients with suboptimal baseline left ventricular echocardiographic images. Am J Cardiol. 2000;86(6):669-674. doi:10.1016/s0002-9149(00)01050-x
[7] Senior R, Andersson O, Caidahl K, et al. Enhanced left ventricular endocardial border delineation with an intravenous injection of SonoVue, a new echocardiographic contrast agent: A European multicenter study. Echocardiography. 2000;17(8):705-711. doi:10.1111/j.1540-8175.2000.tb01223.x
[8] Strom JB, Mulvagh SL, Porter TR, Wei K, Stout JL, Main ML. Contemporary Safety of Ultrasound Enhancing Agents in a Nationwide Analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2025;14(10):e039480. doi:10.1161/JAHA.124.039480
[9] Gonzalez RF, Cabra A, Liu D, et al. Comparative Safety of Ultrasound Enhancing Agents: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis. Am J Cardiol. 2025;237:6-13. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.11.009