Comparison Between SonoVue and Sonazoid Contrast‐Enhanced Ultrasound in Characterization of Focal Nodular Hyperplasia Smaller Than 3 cm

Objectives This study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficacy of contrast‐enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), including SonoVue (SV; sulfur hexafluoride; Bracco SpA, Milan, Italy) and Sonazoid (SZ; perflubutane; GE Healthcare, Oslo, Norway), and explore the differences between them in the characterization of CEUS features in focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) smaller than 3 cm. Methods This retrospective study included 31 lesions smaller than 3 cm diagnosed as FNH by CEUS between April 2019 and November 2019. Nine patients underwent SZ CEUS examinations, and 22 patients underwent SV CEUS examinations; all of them were confirmed by pathologic examinations or 2 other kinds of CEUS methods. We compared the CEUS features between SZ and SV in different phases, including arterial, portal venous, delayed, and Kupffer (SZ) phases. Results Twenty‐eight lesions were eventually diagnosed as FNH; 3 were misdiagnosed as FNH by SV CEUS. The overall diagnostic accuracy of CEUS including SZ and SV was 90.3% (28 of 31). No significant difference was found ( P > .05) for the positive predictive value. Likewise, no significant difference in depicting centrifugal filling (9 of 9 versus 19 of 19), spoke wheel artery (6 of 9 versus 8 of 19), or feeding artery (2 of 9 versus 10 of 19) features was found between the contrast agents; However, SZ was significantly better at depicting the presence of a central scar than SV (5 of 9 versus 3 of 19; P = .030). Misdiagnosed cases are discussed in detail. Conclusions Contrast‐enhanced ultrasound enables an accurate diagnosis in FNH smaller than 3 cm. Sonazoid CEUS and SV CEUS were comparable in diagnosing small FNH, and both agents were highly capable of depicting the centrifugal filling dynamic process of FNH smaller than 3 cm. Sonazoid CEUS might be better than SV CEUS at depicting a central scar.