Positive enteric contrast material for abdominal and pelvic CT with automatic exposure control: What is the effect on patient radiation exposure?
Zhen J. Wang,Katherine S. Chen,Robert Gould,Fergus V. Coakley,Yanjun Fu,Benjamin M. Yeh
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.03.059
IF: 4.531
2011-01-01
European Journal of Radiology
Abstract:Results The mean CTDIvol for the phantom with simulated bowel containing water and positive enteric contrast were 8.2 ± 0.2 mGy, and 8.7 ± 0.1 mGy (6.1% higher than water, p = 0.02), respectively. The mean CTDIvol for patients scanned with oral water and with positive enteric contrast were 11.8 mGy and 13.1 mGy, respectively ( p = 0.003). This corresponded to a mean CTDIvol which was 11.0% higher (range: 0.0–20.7% higher) in scans with positive enteric contrast than those with oral water in patients. Conclusions When automatic exposure control is utilized for abdominopelvic CT, the radiation exposure, as measured by CTDIvol, is higher for scans performed with positive enteric contrast than those with oral water. Keywords Radiation exposure CT Enteric contrast material Automatic exposure control 1 Introduction Computed tomography (CT) use has increased dramatically over the last several decades. It is a major source of radiation exposure in the United States and many other industrialized countries. Approximately 75% of diagnostic radiation exposure in the United States has been attributed to CT [1] . While the clinical benefits of a medically indicated CT study far exceed the potential harmful effects of radiation exposure, greater efforts are clearly needed to minimize radiation exposure from CT. Radiation dose reduction strategies for CT are broad and varied, and include improved CT hardware, improved image reconstruction technologies, and adjustments in CT protocols [2,3] . One widely utilized and successful strategy is the adoption of an automatic exposure control system with tube current modulation, which automatically adjusts slice-by-slice radiation exposure based on the thickness and radiodensity of the patient on the scout view(s). The use of automatic exposure control may reduce abdominopelvic CT patient dose by up to 38% [4] . However, when using such a system, patient preparation may be important for optimal radiation dose reduction. One such variable in patient preparation that may affect radiation exposure is the administration of positive enteric contrast prior to scanning. The positive enteric contrast will appear radiodense on the scout views of the CT scans. The purpose of our study was to assess the effect of positive enteric contrast material on automatic exposure control CT radiation exposure in (1) a CT phantom, and (2) a retrospective review of patients who have undergone a pair of technically comparable abdominopelvic CT scans performed with and without positive enteric contrast material. 2 Materials and methods 2.1 CT phantom A water-filled elliptical abdominal CT phantom, measuring approximately 32 cm × 27 cm in cross section and 20 cm in length, was cast from the abdomen of a 70 kg male volunteer. The walls of the phantom were made of polyethylene which has a CT number approximating that of fat. This phantom was fixed to the CT table with tape. To simulate bowel, polyethylene corrugated tubing (Hudson RCI, Temecula, CA) measuring 130 cm in length and volume of 400 mL was placed into the water-filled CT phantom. The corrugated tubing had rigid maximal and minimal diameters of 2.4 cm and 1.8 cm, respectively, and was serially filled with water and positive enteric contrast material (2% diatrizoate meglumine; Hypaque, General Electric Healthcare, Princeton, NJ) for CT scanning. 2.2 CT technique for phantom study The CT phantom was scanned using a 64-detector-row scanner (Lightspeed VCT, General Electric, Milwaukee, WI) using automatic exposure control with tube current modulation (Auto mA, Smart mA, General Electric, Madison, WI). The minimum and maximum tube current was set at 150 and 800 mA, respectively. The noise index was set at 32 Hounsfield Units (HU). The other scan parameters were: 120 kVp, 1.25 mm slice thickness, 340 mm field-of-view, 1.375 pitch, 0.5 s rotation time, and helical acquisition mode. The reconstruction kernel was standard. The filter used was large. These are the same parameters that we routinely use in clinical practice for patients being scanned on our 64-detector-row CT scanner. For each simulated bowel content (water or positive enteric contrast), the CT phantom was scanned 5 times using the same scanning parameters. The volume CT Dose Index (CTDIvol) was recorded for each scan. 2.3 Patients This retrospective single-institution study was approved by our Institutional Review Board and compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The requirement for written informed consent was waived. An electronic patient information database search was performed to identify all patients over the age of 18 who had undergone 2 CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis, one performed with positive enteric contrast material and one performed with oral water, at our institution between 1/1/2008 and 3/31/2010. Prior to September 2005, our institutional protocol for all routine CT of the abdomen and pelvis included the administration of 800 mL of oral 2% diatrizoate meglumine for bowel opacification prior to CT scanning. Since September 2005, the protocol has been changed to oral administration of 800 mL of water. The protocol change was based on several studies that showed similar diagnostic performance between CT scans performed with and without positive enteric contrast material in various clinical scenarios [5–9] . Currently at our institution, positive enteric contrast material, such as oral diatrizoate meglumine, is only administered in select cases of suspected bowel perforation or enteric fistula, select cases where intravenous contrast material is not administered, and when it is specifically requested by the ordering physicians. To assess the effect of positive enteric contrast material on CT radiation exposure, we sought to minimize other factors that might contribute towards any potential differences in radiation exposure between the pair of two CT scans. Therefore we eliminated any pairs of scans that were acquired on different CT scanners or with different scanning parameters (i.e., with different kVp or slice thickness). We also eliminated pairs of scans if one was performed with intravenous contrast material while the other one was performed without intravenous contrast material. We further eliminated any pairs of scans that had variable presence of metallic or other radiodense foreign objects, including external electrocardiogram (EKG) leads, enteric tubes, or drainage tubes. This is because the variable presence of these radiodense objects may lead to differences in tube current modulation with automatic exposure control [10] . A total of 17 patients (17 pairs of CT scans) that fulfilled the search criteria were identified. These included 9 men and 8 women (mean age 54 years old, range 22–82 years old). The mean duration between the first and second CT scans was 50 days (range: 0–144 days). Of the 17 patients, 15 patients received intravenous contrast material administration for both CT scans. The intravenous contrast material administered was 150-mL bolus of iohexol (Omnipaque 350, Nycomed-Amersham, Princeton, NJ). Two of the 17 patients did not receive intravenous contrast material administration for either of the 2 CT scans. 2.4 CT techniques for patient scans The patients were scanned using a 64-slice ( n = 5), 16-slice ( n = 5) or 4-slice ( n = 7) multi-detector row CT scanners (Lightspeed, General Electric, Milwaukee, WI). The images were acquired from the lung bases to the pubic symphysis. The paired CT exams for each patient were performed on the same scanner with the same parameters (slice thickness, kVp, pitch, table speed), and with the same protocol except for the differences in the administration of enteric contrast material. All scans were acquired using automatic exposure control with tube current modulation (Auto mA, Smart mA, General Electric Healthcare, Milwaukee, WI). The minimum and maximum tube current was set at 150 and 400 mA, respectively for the 4-slice and 16-slice scanners, and at 150 and 800 mA, respectively for the 64-slice scanners. The noise index was set at 12 HU for image acquisitions of 5 mm slice thickness, and 32 HU for image acquisitions of 1.25 mm slice thickness. For all scans, the tube voltage was set at 120 kVp. At our institution, the CT dose report is electronically captured for all CT exams. 2.5 Data analysis One reader recorded the mean volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) for each scan. The CTDIvol is an expression of radiation dose in CT dosimetry. It averages radiation dose over the x , y , and z directions, and is a dose measure of a single volume within a slice. For the CT phantom study, one radiologist recorded the CTDIvol of the phantom when the simulated bowel contained water or positive enteric contrast material. For the retrospective patient study, one radiologist recorded the CTDIvol for each CT scan. The same radiologist also reviewed all the CT scans to confirm the following: (1) each patient had a pair of 2 scans, one performed with enteric contrast material and one without; (2) there was no variable presence of metallic or other radio-opaque objects (such as overlying EKG leads) between the 2 CT scan for each patient; (3) the CT scanner and scanning parameters (such as kVp and slice thickness) were the same between the 2 CT scans for each patient. The clinical imaging findings for all the CT scans were also recorded. Additionally, the transverse and anterior–posterior dimensions of the abdomen at the level of the superior border of L4 vertebral body was measured on the axial CT images of the paired CT scans for each patient. The transverse and anterior–posterior dimensions of the abdomen were used as an approximate measure of patient body size. 2.6 Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was performed using a commercial statistical software package Stata (Version 8.0, Stata Corp, College Station, TX). For the phantom study, paired Student's t -tests were used to compare the mean CTDIvol between scans performed with simulated bowel containing water versus positive enteric contrast material. For the patient study, paired Student's t -tests were used to compare the mean CTDIvol between CT scans performed with positive enteric contrast material and with oral water. Paired Student's t -tests were also used to compare the transverse and anterior–posterior dimensions of the abdomen at the level of L4 vertebral body between the paired CT scans. p values < 0.05 were considered significant. 3 Results 3.1 CT phantom Fig. 1 shows representative images from the CT phantom scans. The CTDIvol was 8.2 ± 0.2 mGy and 8.7 ± 0.1 mGy when the simulated bowel was filled with 400 mL water and positive enteric contrast material, respectively. Compared to the water-filled bowel, the enteric contrast-filled bowel resulted in a mean increase in CTDIvol by 6.1% ( p = 0.02). 3.2 Patients Review of the CT scans in the 17 patients showed the following CT findings: small bowel obstruction ( n = 3), colon perforation with small amount of free intra-peritoneal air ( n = 1), colitis ( n = 2), post operative fluid collections ( n = 4), and metastatic cancer ( n = 2). The above findings were persistent on all of the pairs of CT scans except for one patient where the small bowel obstruction resolved on the follow up CT study performed with positive enteric contrast material. The remaining 5 patients did not show identifiable pathology at either scan. The mean transverse and anterior–posterior dimensions of the abdomen at the level of L4 vertebral body did not change significantly between the pair of CT scans (transverse dimension: 32.7 ± 5.1 cm versus 33.0 ± 5.0 cm; anterior–posterior dimension: 25.2 ± 4.5 cm versus 25.0 ± 4.6 cm; both p values > 0.35). The mean changes in the transverse and anterior–posterior dimensions of the abdomen between the pairs of scans were 0.3 ± 0.1 cm and 0.2 ± 0.1 cm, respectively. Fig. 2 shows an example of a pair of CT scans in one patient, one scan performed with positive enteric contrast material, the other performed with oral water. The mean CTDIvol was significantly higher for scans performed with positive enteric contrast material than scans performed with oral water (13.1 ± 6.1 mGy versus 11.8 ± 5.5 mGy, p = 0.003) ( Fig. 3 ). This corresponds to a mean CTDIvol increase of 11.0% (range: 0.0–20.7%) in scans with positive enteric contrast material than those with oral water. 4 Discussion We found higher radiation exposures, as measured by CTDIvol, in CT scans performed with positive enteric contrast material than those with oral water, both in a CT phantom and in patients. The higher radiation exposure in scans with enteric contrast material can likely be explained by the use of automatic exposure control in our CT studies. Automatic exposure control is one of the most important and widely implemented technologies used to reduce radiation exposure in CT. It automatically modulates the tube current to accommodate differences in attenuation due to different anatomic regions and patient size in order to produce consistent image quality at the lowest achievable dose. For example, the tube current is modulated to higher levels when scanning through dense osseous structures such as pelvic bones than soft tissue structures, or when scanning large-size than small-size patients. A common way to implement automatic exposure control is to adjust the tube current based on X-ray attenuation and patient thickness as determined on the scout image(s) in order to maintain a user-selected noise level on the CT image (i.e., Auto mA/Smart mA on the General Electric CT equipment). Because positive enteric contrast material will appear radio-dense on the scout image, the tube current will automatically be adjusted to higher levels in the sections containing the contrast-opacified bowel in order to maintain the desired noise index. This results in higher radiation exposure as measured by higher CTDIvol. Interestingly, a recent study on CT colonography performed with automatic exposure control reported that the estimated X-ray attenuation of the tagged stool and fluid in the colon did not significantly affect the mean CTDIvol [11] . The authors, therefore, concluded that stool and fluid tagging with barium or iodine does not significantly affect radiation exposure [11] . However, the mean CTDIvol would likely be dependent on both the X-ray attenuation and the volume of tagged stool and fluid in the colon. It is possible that the effect of the high X-ray attenuation tagged stool and fluid on the mean CTDIvol of the scan is obscured if the volume of such stool and fluid is small. We found higher average percentage increase in CTDIvol with positive enteric contrast in patients compared to phantom. This may in part be explained by the high volume of positive enteric contrast material in the patients’ bowel (patients were asked to ingest 800 mL of positive enteric contrast) than in the simulated bowel in phantom (filled with 400 mL of positive enteric contrast). We also found a fairly wide range of percentage increase in CTDIvol when positive enteric contrast material was administered to the patients. This may be explained by the variable amount of positive enteric contrast material that was present in the bowel at the time of the CT scan. While each patient was instructed to ingest 800 mL of positive enteric contrast prior to CT scan, the amount of enteric contrast material within the bowel is dependent on the actual amount ingested by the patients and the time delay from ingestion to CT scanning. Our findings highlight the importance of careful attention to CT protocols in combination with scanner settings for minimizing radiation exposure to patients. The administration of positive enteric contrast material is a routine part of the protocol for abdominal pelvic CT at many radiology practices. However, very little attention has been paid to the effect of such contrast material on radiation exposure when patients are scanned with commonly used CT settings such as automatic exposure control. Our study showed an adverse effect of positive enteric contrast media on patient radiation exposure when combined with automatic exposure control. Our findings raise the question whether positive enteric contrast media should be administered routinely for abdominal and pelvic CT. The use of positive enteric contrast media at CT was previously thought to be necessary for the optimal delineation of bowel pathology and for the differentiation between contrast-opacified bowel and extraluminal fluid collections. However, several recent studies on newer generation multi-detector row CT scanners have shown similar diagnostic performance between CT scans performed with and without positive enteric contrast media in various clinical scenarios [5–9] . Additionally, it has been shown that intravenous contrast enhancement of the bowel wall was better evaluated in the absence of positive enteric contrast media in the bowel lumen and such enhancement may be critical to accurate diagnosis of bowel pathology [12,13] . The administration of positive enteric contrast media is also associated with other problems such as poor patient tolerance, cost, delay in scanning, and rare side effects [14] . While positive enteric contrast material may be necessary in select cases, its routine use may be unwarranted. The potential harmful effect of positive enteric contrast material with respect to increase radiation exposure may become another reason why such contrast material should not be routinely administered to patients prior to their CT studies. Our study has several limitations. First, while we attempted to control for the major scanner variables that may affect radiation exposure in our patient study, it is possible that there were other factors that differ between the pair of two CT scans that may have altered the measured CTDIvol. These include changes in patient body size or fluid volume in the bowel as in bowel obstruction, and the amount of lung tissue included on the abdomino-pelvic CT scans. We found no significant changes in the transverse and anterior–posterior dimensions of the abdomen at the level of L4 vertebral body, which were used as an approximate measure of body size, between the pair of CT scans. The presence of bowel obstruction with large amount of fluid in the bowel will likely increase the CTDIvol on scans performed using automatic exposure control. In our series, there were only 3 patients with bowel obstruction. Two of the 3 patients had bowel obstruction persisting on both CT scans; the third patients had small bowel obstruction resolved on the follow up CT study performed with positive enteric contrast material. In this third patient, the presence of bowel obstruction on the first CT scan performed without positive enteric contrast may have caused an underestimation of the CTDIvol increase from positive enteric contrast on the follow up CT scan. It is also difficult to quantify the exact amount of positive enteric contrast present in the bowel at the time of the CT scans in patients as stated previously. Overall, however, we do not believe these factors will significantly affect our results. Additionally, it is possible that there was a small difference in the amount of lung tissues imaged on the paired abdomino-pelvic CT scans. This may have potentially attributed to the difference in the CTDIvol, because the lung tissues are much less radio-dense that the abdominal organs. The aforementioned factors are limitations of retrospective patient studies. However, the results from our patient study are congruent with those from the phantom study. In combination, the patient and phantom studies provide strong evidence that positive enteric contrast material increases radiation exposure when automatic exposure control is utilized. Second, we only evaluated the effect of positive enteric contrast on CT radiation exposure as measured by CTDIvol; we did not assess the absorbed patient radiation dose because the measurement of the absorbed dose is not possible in a retrospective patient study. However, the dose-length product, which is proportional to CTDIvol (DLP = CTDIvol × scan length), is an indicator of the radiation dose of an entire CT exam. Third, our scans were performed using a commonly used automatic exposure control strategy where tube current is modulated based on a prescribed image noise index (Auto mA, Smart mA, General Electric). Future studies evaluating the effect of positive enteric contrast on CT radiation exposure using other automatic exposure control strategies by other vendors are warranted. Fourth, the sample size for our patient study was small. This is partly a reflection of the small number of CT studies performed with positive enteric contrast media at our institution. 5 Conclusions Notwithstanding these limitations, we found that when automatic exposure control is utilized for abdominopelvic CT, the radiation exposure, as measured by CTDIvol, is higher for scans performed with positive enteric contrast than those with oral water, both in a CT phantom and in patients. The effect on radiation exposure should be considered in the decision to give positive enteric contrast for CT studies. References [1] P.W. Wiest J.A. Locken P.H. Heintz F.A. Mettler Jr. CT scanning: a major source of radiation exposure Semin Ultrasound CT MR 23 2002 402 410 [2] A.C. Silva H.J. Lawder A. Hara J. Kujak W. Pavlicek Innovations in CT dose reduction strategy: application of the adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm AJR Am J Roentgenol 194 2010 191 199 [3] F.V. Coakley R. Gould B.M. Yeh R.L. Arenson CT radiation dose: what can you do right now in your practice? AJR Am J Roentgenol 196 2011 619 625 [4] T.H. Mulkens P. Bellinck M. Baeyaert Use of an automatic exposure control mechanism for dose optimization in multi-detector row CT examinations: clinical evaluation Radiology 237 2005 213 223 [5] J.W. Stuhlfaut J.A. Soto B.C. Lucey Blunt abdominal trauma: performance of CT without oral contrast material Radiology 233 2004 689 694 [6] M.J. Halsted J.M. Racadio K.H. Emery Oral contrast agents for CT of abdominal trauma in pediatric patients: a comparison of dilute hypaque and water AJR Am J Roentgenol 182 2004 1555 1559 [7] B.A. Anderson L. Salem D.R. Flum A systematic review of whether oral contrast is necessary for the computed tomography diagnosis of appendicitis in adults Am J Surg 190 2005 474 478 [8] K.M. Horton E.K. Fishman Multidetector-row computed tomography and 3-dimensional computed tomography imaging of small bowel neoplasms: current concept in diagnosis J Comput Assist Tomogr 28 2004 106 116 [9] F.H. Miller C.M. Hwang An initial experience: using helical CT imaging to detect obscure gastrointestinal bleeding Clin Imaging 28 2004 245 251 [10] S.M. Rizzo M.K. Kalra M.M. Maher Do metallic endoprostheses increase radiation dose associated with automatic tube-current modulation in abdominal-pelvic MDCT? A phantom and patient study AJR Am J Roentgenol 184 2005 491 496 [11] H.K. Lim K.H. Lee S.Y. Kim Does the amount of tagged stool and fluid significantly affect the radiation exposure in low-dose CT colonography performed with an automatic exposure control? Eur Radiol 2010 [12] E.T. Scholten B.G. Ziedses des Plantes T.H. Falke Computed tomography of the large bowel wall. Choice of slice thickness and intraluminal contrast medium Invest Radiol 30 1995 275 284 [13] T. Jancelewicz L.T. Vu A.E. Shawo Predicting strangulated small bowel obstruction: an old problem revisited J Gastrointest Surg 13 2009 93 99 [14] C.W. Seymour J.P. Pryor R. Gupta C.W. Schwab Anaphylactoid reaction to oral contrast for computed tomography J Trauma 57 2004 1105 1107
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
-
Clinical effectiveness of contrast medium injection protocols for 80-kV coronary and craniocervical CT angiography—a prospective multicenter observational study
Yining Wang,Yu Chen,Peijun Liu,Wan Lv,Jianlin Wu,Mengqi Wei,Dapeng Shi,Xianheng Wu,Wenya Liu,Xiaofeng Tao,Hongjie Hu,Xiangxing Ma,Xiaozheng Yang,Huadan Xue,Zhengyu Jin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08505-5
IF: 7.034
2022-01-01
European Radiology
Abstract:Background and objective Decreasing X-ray tube voltage is an effective way to reduce radiation and contrast dose, especially in non-obese patients. The current study focuses on CTA in non-obese patients to evaluate image quality and feasibility of 80-kV acquisition protocols with varying iodine delivery rates (IDR) and contrast concentrations in routine clinical practice. Methods A prospective observational study in patients ≥ 18 years and ≤ 90 kg referred for coronary or craniocervical CTA at 10 centers in China (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02840903). Patients were divided into four groups: a standard 100-kV protocol (370 mgI/ml, IDR 1.48 gI/s), and three 80-kV protocols (370 mgI/ml, IDR 1.2 gI/s; 300 mgI/ml, IDR 1.2 gI/s; 300 mgI/ml, IDR 0.96gI/s). The primary outcome was contrast opacification of target vascular segments. Secondary outcomes were image quality (contrast-to-noise ratio, signal-to-noise ratio, visual image quality, and diagnostic confidence assessment), radiation, and iodine dose. Results From July 2016 to July 2017, 1213 patients were enrolled: 614 coronary and 599 craniocervical CTA. The mean contrast opacification was ≥ 300 HU for 80-kV 1.2 gI/s IDR scanned segments; IDR 0.96 gI/s led to lower opacification. Image quality and diagnostic confidence were fair to excellent (≥ 98% of images), despite lower contrast-to-noise ratios and signal-to-noise ratios in 80-kV images. Compared to the standard protocol, 80-kV protocols led to 44–52% radiation dose reductions ( p < 0.001) and 19% iodine dose reductions ( p < 0.001). Conclusion Eighty-kilovolt 1.2 gI/s IDR protocols can be recommended for coronary and craniocervical CTA in non-obese patients, reducing radiation and iodine dose without compromising image quality. Key Points • Using low-voltage scanning CTA protocols, in which tube voltage and iodine delivery rate are reduced proportionally (voltage: 80 kV, IDR: 1.2 gI/s), reduces radiation and contrast dose without compromising image quality in routine clinical practice . • Reducing iodine delivery rate beyond direct proportionality to tube voltage is not beneficial .
-
Comparative study of abdominal CT enhancement in overweight and obese patients based on different scanning modes combined with different contrast medium concentrations
Kai Gao,Ze-Peng Ma,Tian-Le Zhang,Yi-Wen Liu,Yong-Xia Zhao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/xst-230327
2024-01-12
Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology
Abstract:PURPOSE: To compare image quality, iodine intake, and radiation dose in overweight and obese patients undergoing abdominal computed tomography (CT) enhancement using different scanning modes and contrast medium. METHODS: Ninety overweight and obese patients (25 kg/m2≤body mass index (BMI)< 30 kg/m2 and BMI≥30 kg/m2) who underwent abdominal CT-enhanced examinations were randomized into three groups (A, B, and C) of 30 each and scanned using gemstone spectral imaging (GSI) +320 mgI/ml, 100 kVp + 370 mgI/ml, and 120 kVp + 370 mgI/ml, respectively. Reconstruct monochromatic energy images of group A at 50–70 keV (5 keV interval). The iodine intake and radiation dose of each group were recorded and calculated. The CT values, contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs), and subjective scores of each subgroup image in group A versus images in groups B and C were by using one-way analysis of variance or Kruskal–Wallis H test, and the optimal keV of group A was selected. RESULTS: The dual-phase CT values and CNRs of each part in group A were higher than or similar to those in groups B and C at 50–60 keV, and similar to or lower than those in groups B and C at 65 keV and 70 keV. The subjective scores of the dual-phase images in group A were lower than those of groups B and C at 50 keV and 55 keV, whereas no significant difference was seen at 60–70 keV. Compared to groups B and C, the iodine intake in group A decreased by 12.5% and 13.3%, respectively. The effective doses in groups A and B were 24.7% and 25.8% lower than those in group C, respectively. CONCLUSION: GSI +320 mgI/ml for abdominal CT-enhanced in overweight patients satisfies image quality while reducing iodine intake and radiation dose, and the optimal keV was 60 keV.
instruments & instrumentation,optics,physics, applied
-
The combination of a reduction in contrast agent dose with low tube voltage and an adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm in CT enterography: Effects on image quality and radiation dose.
Cui Feng,Di Zhu,Xianlun Zou,Anqin Li,Xuemei Hu,Zhen Li,Daoyu Hu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000010151
IF: 1.6
2018-01-01
Medicine
Abstract:To investigate the subjective and quantitative image quality and radiation exposure of CT enterography (CTE) examination performed at low tube voltage and low concentration of contrast agent with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) algorithm, compared with conventional CTE. One hundred thirty-seven patients with suspected or proved gastrointestinal diseases underwent contrast enhanced CTE in a multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scanner. All cases were assigned to 2 groups. Group A (n = 79) underwent CT with low tube voltage based on patient body mass index (BMI) (BMI < 23 kg/m(2), 80kVp; BMI >= 23 kg/m(2), 100kVp) and low concentration of contrast agent (270mg I/mL), the images were reconstructed with standard filtered back projection (FBP) algorithm and 50% ASIR algorithm. Group B (n = 58) underwent conventional CTE with 120kVp and 350mg I/mL contrast agent, the images were reconstructed with FBP algorithm. The computed tomography dose index volume (CTDIvol), dose length product (DLP), effective dose (ED), and total iodine dosage were calculated and compared. The CT values, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the normal bowel wall, gastrointestinal lesions, and mesenteric vessels were assessed and compared. The subjective image quality was assessed independently and blindly by 2 radiologists using a 5-point Likert scale. The differences of values for CTDIvol (8.64 +/- 2.72 vs 11.55 +/- 3.95, P < .001), ED (6.34 +/- 2.24 vs 8.52 +/- 3.02, P < .001), and DLP (422.6 +/- 149.40 vs 568.30 +/- 213.90, P < .001) were significant between group A and group B, with a reduction of 25.2%, 25.7%, and 25.7% in group A, respectively. The total iodine dosage in group A was reduced by 26.1%. The subjective image quality did not differ between the 2 groups (P > .05) and all image quality scores were greater than or equal to 3 (moderate). Fifty percent ASIR-A group images provided lower image noise, but similar or higher quantitative image quality in comparison with FBP-B group images. Compared with the conventional protocol, CTE performed at low tube voltage, low concentration of contrast agent with 50% ASIR algorithm produce a diagnostically acceptable image quality with a mean ED of 6.34 mSv and a total iodine dose reduction of 26.1%.
-
A Prospective Evaluation Of The Contrast, Radiation Dose And Image Quality Of Contrast-Enhanced Ct Scans Of Paediatric Abdomens Using A Low-Concentration Iodinated Contrast Agent And Low Tube Voltage Combined With 70% Asir Algorithm
Xiaoxia Wang,Yumin Zhong,Liwei Hu,Lianyan Xue,Meihua Shi,Haisheng Qiu,Jianying Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12853
IF: 2.6
2016-01-01
International Journal of Clinical Practice
Abstract:PurposeTo quantitatively and subjectively assess the image quality of and radiation dose for an abdominal enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan with a low tube voltage and a low concentration of iodinated contrast agent in children.MethodsForty-eight patients were randomised to one of the two following protocols: Group A (n=24, mean age 46.9644.65months, mean weight 15.719.11kg, BMI 16.48 +/- 2.40kg/m(2)) and Group B (n=24, mean age 41.33 +/- 44.59months, mean weight 18.15 +/- 17.67kg, BMI 17.50 +/- 3.73kg/m(2)). Group A: 80kVp tube voltage, 270mg iodine (I)/mL contrast agent (Visipaque, GE Healthcare) and images were reconstructed using 70% adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR). Group B: 100kVp tube voltage, 370mgI/mL contrast agent (Iopamiro, Bracco) and images were reconstructed using 50% ASIR. The volume of the contrast agent was 1.30mL/kg in both Groups A and B. The degree of enhancement and noise in the abdominal aorta (AO) in the arterial phase (AP) and the portal vein (PV) in the portal venous phase (PVP) was measured; while the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) for the AO and PV were calculated. A 5-point scale was used to subjectively evaluate the image quality and image noise by two radiologists with more than 10years of experience. Dose-length product (DLP) (mGy-cm) and CTDIvol (mGy) were calculated. Objective measurements and subjective quality scores for the two groups were compared using paired t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively.ResultsThere was no significant difference in age, weight or body mass index (BMI) between the two groups (all P>.5). The iodine load in Group A (5517.3 +/- 3197.2mgI) was 37% lower than that in Group B (8772.1 +/- 8474.6mgI), although there was no significant difference between them (P=.111). The DLP and the CT dose index (CTDIvol) for Group A were also lower than for Group B, but were not statistically significantly different (DLP, 104mGy-cm +/- 45.81 vs 224.5mGy-cm +/- 45.83; CTDIvol, 1.44mGy +/- 0.50 vs 2.08mGy +/- 1.87, all P>.05). The mean arterial and portal venous enhancement (255.33 HU +/- 83.42, 146.41 HU +/- 23.45, respectively), noise (AP 14.96 HU +/- 2.09, PVP 16.30 HU +/- 3.21), CNRs (AO 14.54 +/- 7.12, PV 5.07 +/- 1.73) and SNRs (AO 20.76 +/- 6.76, PV 12.43 +/- 3.24) for Group A were similar to Group B (enhancement: 226.55 HU +/- 77.71, 138.69 HU +/- 33.22; noise: 14.92 HU +/- 3.12, 15.36 HU +/- 3.48; CNRs: 12.96 +/- 7.14, 5.16 +/- 2.28; SNRs: 19.13 +/- 7.30, 12.69 +/- 4.22; all P>.05). The mean scores of the quality of the AP and PVP images in Group B were 4.31 +/- 0.53 and 4.35 +/- 0.52, respectively, while the scores obtained in Group A were 4.29 +/- 0.51 and 4.25 +/- 0.51; there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups.ConclusionThe scanning protocol using a low tube voltage (80kVp) together with 70% ASIR and a low-concentration iodinated contrast agent (270mgI/mL) enables a 37% reduction in iodine load and a 30% reduction in radiation dose while maintaining compatible image quality.
-
Abdominal CT: a radiologist-driven adjustment of the dose of iodinated contrast agent approaches a calculation per lean body weight
Moreno Zanardo,Fabio Martino Doniselli,Anastassia Esseridou,Stefania Tritella,Chiara Mattiuz,Laura Menicagli,Giovanni Di Leo,Francesco Sardanelli
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-018-0074-1
2018-12-01
European Radiology Experimental
Abstract:BackgroundThe contrast agent (CA) dose for abdominal computed tomography (CT) is typically based on patient total body weight (TBW), ignoring adipose tissue distribution. We report on our experience of dosing according to the lean body weight (LBW).MethodsAfter Ethics Committee approval, we retrospectively screened 219 consecutive patients, 18 being excluded for not matching the inclusion criteria. Thus, 201 were analysed (106 males), all undergoing a contrast-enhanced abdominal CT with iopamidol (370 mgI/mL) or iomeprol (400 mgI/mL). LBW was estimated using validated formulas. Liver contrast-enhancement (CEL) was measured. Data were reported as mean ± standard deviation. Pearson correlation coefficient, ANOVA, and the Levene test were used.ResultsMean age was 66 ± 13 years, TBW 72 ± 15 kg, LBW 53 ± 11 kg, and LBW/TBW ratio 74 ± 8%; body mass index was 26 ± 5 kg/m2, with 9 underweight patients (4%), 82 normal weight (41%), 76 overweight (38%), and 34 obese (17%). The administered CA dose was 0.46 ± 0.06 gI/kg of TBW, corresponding to 0.63 ± 0.09 gI/kg of LBW. A negative correlation was found between TBW and CA dose (r = -0.683, p < 0.001). CEL (Hounsfield units) was 51 ± 18 in underweight patients, 44 ± 8 in normal weight, 42 ± 9 in overweight, and 40 ± 6 in obese, with a significant difference for both mean (p = 0.004) and variance (p < 0.001). A low but significant positive correlation was found between CEL and CA dose in gI per TBW (r = 0.371, p < 0.001) or per LBW (r = 0.333, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe injected CA dose was highly variable, with obese patients receiving a lower dose than underweight patients, as a radiologist-driven ‘compensation effect’. Diagnostic abdomen CT examinations may be obtained using 0.63 gI/kg of LBW.
-
A prospective study comparing water only with positive oral contrast in patients undergoing abdominal CT scan
Pascale A. M. de Wit,Jeroen A. W. Tielbeek,Pascal R. van Diepen,Ikrame Oulad Abdennabi,Ludo F. M. Beenen,Shandra Bipat
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63838-3
IF: 4.6
2020-04-22
Scientific Reports
Abstract:Abstract Consecutive adults scheduled to undergo abdominal CT with oral contrast were asked to choose between 1000 ml water only or positive oral contrast (50 ml Télébrix-Gastro diluted in 950 ml water). Two abdominal radiologists independently reviewed each scan for image quality of the abdomen, the diagnostic confidence per system (gastrointestinalsystem/organs/peritoneum/retroperitoneum/lymph nodes) and overall diagnostic confidence to address the clinical question (not able/partial able/fully able). Radiation exposure was extracted from dose reports. Differences between both groups were evaluated by Student’s t-test, Mann-Whitney-U-test or chi-square-test. Of the 320participants, 233chose water only. All baseline characteristics, image quality of the abdomen and the diagnostic confidence of the organs were comparable between groups and both observers. Diagnostic confidence in the water only group was more commonly scored as less than good by observer1. The results were as follows: the gastrointestinal system(18/233vs1/87; p = 0.031), peritoneum (21/233vs1/87; p = 0.012), retroperitoneum (11/233vs0/87; p = 0.040) and lymph nodes (11/233vs0/87; p = 0.040). These structures were scored as comparable between both groups by observer2. The diagnostic confidence to address the clinical question could be partially addressed in 6/233 vs 0/87 patients (p = 0.259). The water only group showed a tendency towards less radiation exposure. In summary, most scan ratings were comparable between positive contrast and water only, but slightly favored positive oral contrast for one reader for some abdominal structures. Therefore, water only can replace positive oral contrast in the majority of the outpatients scheduled to undergo an abdominal CT.
multidisciplinary sciences
-
Effect of Low Contrast Dose and Low Tube Voltage Combined with Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstruction in the Image Quality of Abdominal CT Angiography
Tingting LV,Ailian LIU,Heqing WANG,Shifeng TIAN,Jinghong LIU,Yijun LIU
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-5185.2015.04.005
2015-01-01
Abstract:Purpose To investigate the effect of low contrast dose and low tube voltage combined with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction (ASIR) on image quality of abdominal CT angiography. Materials and Methods 139 patients with body mass index (BMI) <22 kg/m2 who were supposed to undergo abdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced examination were prospectively enrolled and randomly divided into group A with 78 cases (80 kVp tube voltage +50% ASIR, contrast agent concentration 270 mgI/ml) and group B with 61 cases (120 kVp tube voltage, contrast agent concentration 350 mgI/ml). Subjective score of right renal artery image quality of the two groups were evaluated and the coefficient between them was tested; CT dose index of volume (CTDIvol), CT values of abdominal aorta and its branches, and the right side erector spinae, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the vessel, the right erector spinae image noise (SD), and the total amount of iodine were also compared between the two groups. Results The inter observer agreement for subjective scores were very good (Kappa value>0.80) in both groups, the subjective score of group A and group B were 4.60±0.51 and 3.81±0.76, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (Z= - 6.86, P<0.05). CTDIvol of group A and group B were (5.56±4.21) mGy and (7.11±1.54) mGy, respectively, the difference was statistically significant (t= - 9.89, P<0.01); CT values of the arteries in both groups were all greater than 400 HU; CT values and the CNR of the abdominal aortic trunk and branches in group A were higher than those of group B (P<0.05); there was no statistically significant difference of image noise between the two groups (P>0.05). The total amount of iodine dose in group A and group B was 270 mg and 350 mg respectively, with a 22.86% reduce of the total iodine for each patient in A group than in B group. Conclusion For patients with BMI<22 kg/m2, it is feasible to use low dose contrast medium with low tube voltage and ASIR, which may not only improve the image quality of abdominal CTA but also reduce the radiation dose and iodine content.
-
PCD-CT enables contrast media reduction in abdominal imaging compared to an individualized kV-adapted contrast media injection protocol on EID-CT
Eva J I Hoeijmakers,Lion Stammen,Joachim E Wildberger,Nienke G Eijsvoogel,Johanna M Hersbach,Joey C J G Pernot,Thomas G Flohr,Bibi Martens,Cécile R L P N Jeukens
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111680
Abstract:Objectives: This study aims to demonstrate reduced iodine contrast media (CM) in routine abdominal CT scans in portal venous phase (PVP) using a photon-counting detector CT (PCD-CT) compared to total body weight (TBW) and kV-adapted CM injection protocols on a state-of-the-art energy-integrating detector CT (EID-CT) while maintaining sufficient image quality (IQ). Materials and methods: Consecutive contrast-enhanced abdominal PVP CT scans from an EID-CT (Nov 2022-March 2024) and a PCD-CT (Sep 2023-Dec 2023) were compared. CM parameters (total iodine load (TIL), iodine delivery rate (IDR) and dosing factor (DF)) were reported. An individualized acquisition and CM injection protocol based on TBW and kV was applied for the EID-CT and a TBW adapted CM injection protocol was used for the PCD-CT. Objective IQ was evaluated with mean attenuation (Hounsfield Units, HU), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)). Subjective IQ was assessed via a 5-point Likert scale by 2 expert readers based on diagnostic confidence. Results: Based on 91 EID-CT scans and 102 PCD-CT scans a TIL reduction of 20.1 % was observed for PCD-CT. PCD-CT demonstrated significantly higher SNR (9.9 ± 1.7 vs. 9.1 ± 1.8, p < 0.001) and CNR (5.1 ± 1.7 vs. 4.3 ± 1.3, p < 0.001) compared to EID-CT. Subjective IQ assessment showed that all scans had sufficient diagnostic IQ. Conclusions: PCD-CT allows for CM reduction while providing higher SNR and CNR compared to EID-CT, using clinical individualized scan and CM injection protocols.
-
Effect of patient characteristics on aortic attenuation in iodinated contrast-enhanced Abdominopelvic CT: A retrospective study
N A Varughese,N C Panakkal,V T Nair,R Kadavigere,V Lakshmi,S Sukumar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2024.07.012
Abstract:Introduction: Contrast Enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) abdomen and pelvis is a common imaging procedure. Hospitals typically follow fixed protocols of contrast volume administration for triple-phase CECT abdomen and pelvis scans and have found that patients are either underdosed or overdosed with respect to their body habitus. The aim of the study was to correlate different patient characteristics such as Total body weight (TBW), Lean Body Mass (LBM), Body Mass Index (BMI), Body Surface Area (BSA) and Blood Volume (BV) with aortic enhancement in the arterial and portal venous phases for CECT Abdomen and pelvis. Methods: A total of 106 patients who underwent triple-phase CECT abdomen & pelvis were retrospectively studied. A circular region-of-interest (ROI) of 100 mm2 was positioned on descending aorta for unenhanced, arterial, and portal venous phases to measure the aortic enhancement in Hounsfield's units. Measure of contrast attenuation (ΔH) was calculated from the difference of CT values on unenhanced images and contrast images. Correlation analysis was performed to evaluate the relation of patient body characteristics with aortic enhancement. Results: Correlation analysis revealed that BMI exhibited the least correlation when compared to the other characteristics in both arterial (r = -0.3; p = 0.002) and portovenous phases (r = -0.35; p < 0.001) whereas TBW, LBW, BSA and BV reported moderate inverse correlations. BV was found to be the strongest of all characteristics under linear regression. Conclusion: The study supports the use of protocols that adjust contrast volume to either TBW, LBW, BSA, or BV for CT abdomen and pelvis scan. Implication of practice: The right body parameter ensures optimal contrast enhancement, improving the visualization of anatomical structures and helps in adapting tailored contrast injection protocols.
-
Institutional clinical indication-based typical dose values of multiphasic abdominopelvic computed tomography examinations
Süleyman Filiz,Safiye Gürel,Kamil Gürel
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4274/dir.2024.232551
2024-02-20
Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology
Abstract:PURPOSE: Our study aimed to obtain clinical indication-based typical dose values and size-specific dose estimates (SSDEs) for multiphasic abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) examinations and to review our data with published diagnostic reference levels (DRLs).METHODS: In this retrospective study, multiphasic liver, kidney, pancreas, and mesenteric ischemia protocol CT scans performed at our center between January 2018 and December 2021 were analyzed. The clinical indications were hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, pancreas adenocarcinoma, and mesenteric ischemia. The computed tomography dose index volume (CTDI<sub>vol</sub>) and dose-length product (DLP) values were recorded, and the SSDE and effective dose (ED) values were calculated. The water-equivalent diameter (Dw) value required for the SSDE calculation was measured using the automated calculation of the Dw program.RESULTS: The total number of patients was 514, with 86 patients excluded from this study. The dose values were calculated for 426 patients (183 female and 243 male; 111 liver, 120 kidney, 85 pancreas, and 110 mesenteric). The median values for the CTDI<sub>vol</sub>, DLP, SSDE, and ED were 6.86 mGy, 683.02 mGy. cm, 8.75 mGy, and 10.45 mSv for the liver CT; 8.37 mGy, 908.37 mGy.cm, 10.37 mGy, and 13.89 mSv for the kidney CT; 7.82 mGy, 517.98 mGy.cm, 10.01 mGy, and 7.92 mSv for the pancreas CT; and 9.48 mGy, 983.68 mGy.cm, 12.78 mGy, and 13.86 mSv for the mesenteric CT, respectively. All dose values were lower than the published DRLs.CONCLUSION: The literature reveals large differences in the multiphasic abdominopelvic CT protocols, especially in the number of phases and scan length. This situation makes comparing dose values difficult. Dose studies revealing the protocol parameters in detail are needed so that institutions can compare and optimize their own protocols. Additionally, users should periodically check the dose values in their own institutions.
radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
-
Relationship between low tube voltage (70 kV) and the iodine delivery rate (IDR) in CT angiography: An experimental in-vivo study
Michael M. Lell,Ulrike Fleischmann,Hubertus Pietsch,Johannes G. Korporaal,Ulrike Haberland,Andreas H. Mahnken,Thomas G. Flohr,Michael Uder,Gregor Jost
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173592
IF: 3.7
2017-03-20
PLoS ONE
Abstract:OBJECTIVE: Very short acquisition times and the use of low-kV protocols in CTA demand modifications in the contrast media (CM) injection regimen. The aim of this study was to optimize the use of CM delivery parameters in thoraco-abdominal CTA in a porcine model.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six pigs (55-68 kg) were examined with a dynamic CTA protocol (454 mm scan length, 2.5 s temporal resolution, 70 s total acquisition time). Four CM injection protocols were applied in a randomized order. 120 kV CTA protocol: (A) 300 mg iodine/kg bodyweight (bw), IDR = 1.5 g/s (flow = 5 mL/s), injection time (ti) 12 s (60 kg bw). 70 kV CTA protocols: 150 mg iodine/kg bw: (B) IDR = 0.75 g/s (flow = 2.5 mL/s), ti = 12 s (60 kg bw); (C) IDR = 1.5 g/s (flow = 5 mL/s), ti = 12 s (60 kg bw); (D) IDR = 3.0 g/s (flow = 10 mL/s), ti = 3 s (60 kg bw). The complete CM bolus shape was monitored by creating time attenuation curves (TAC) in different vascular territories. Based on the TAC, the time to peak (TTP) and the peak enhancement were determined. The diagnostic window (relative enhancement > 300 HU), was calculated and compared to visual inspection of the corresponding CTA data sets.RESULTS: The average relative arterial peak enhancements after baseline correction were 358.6 HU (A), 356.6 HU (B), 464.0 HU (C), and 477.6 HU (D). The TTP decreased with increasing IDR and decreasing ti, protocols A and B did not differ significantly (systemic arteries, p = 0.843; pulmonary arteries, p = 0.183). The delay time for bolus tracking (trigger level 100 HU; target enhancement 300 HU) for single-phase CTA was comparable for protocol A and B (3.9, 4.3 s) and C and D (2.4, 2.0 s). The scan window time frame was comparable for the different protocols by visual inspection of the different CTA data sets and by analyzing the TAC.CONCLUSIONS: All protocols provided sufficient arterial enhancement. The use of a 70 kV CTA protocol is recommended because of a 50% reduction of total CM volume and a 50% reduced flow rate while maintaining the bolus profile. In contrast to pulmonary arterial enhancement, the systemic arterial enhancement improved only slightly increasing the IDR from 1.5 g/s to 3 g/s because of bolus dispersion of the very short bolus (3s) in the lungs.
multidisciplinary sciences
-
The Application of Automatic Tube Current Modulation (atcm) on Image Quality and Radiation Dose at Abdominal Computed Tomography (ct): A Phantom Study
Qian Wang,Xinming Zhao,Junfeng Song,Ning Guo,Ying Zhu,Jianxin Liu,Weiwei Qi,Jing Wu,Yuan Liang,Shichao Feng,Mancang Hu,Chunwu Zhou,Xiaoying Wang,Nan Hong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/xst-130403
2013-01-01
Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology
Abstract:Multi-phase spiral Computed tomography (CT) of abdomen has been widely used as an effective imaging modality to diagnose variety of diseases. As a result, the accumulated radiation exposure on the abdomen is substantially higher than other human organ regions. According to ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle, how to control radiation dose without compromising imaging quality becomes a research topic of high interest. However, how to achieve dose optimization of the abdomen CT examinations in Chinese patients have not been fully investigated in previous studies. In this study, we develop an abdomen-equivalent tissue model made by well-known CTP579 auxiliary testing model and the real CT data acquired from 68 Chinese male subjects. Combining with catphan600, we simulated the visibility of low and high contrast objects at adult abdomen under variety of x-ray dose levels. Using the automatic tube current modulation (ATCM) technique, we reduced the total radiation dose and identified a proper noise index (NI) for Chinese patients to maintain low or high contrast detectability of abdominal CT image. Our numerical experiments showed that in the phantom study for Chinese patients, when a NI was set at 10, the radiation dose reduced by 34.3% with low contrast objects detectable, while setting NI at 14 the dose level decreased by 65.1% without change the detectability of high contrast targets. The subjective ratings from three radiologists also yielded high consistence with Kappa > 0.75. This study demonstrated the feasibility of performing the CT dose optimization studies through a unique phantom with the ATCM method.
-
Radiation doses and image quality of abdominal CT scans at different patient sizes using spectral detector CT scanner: a phantom and clinical study
Xinhui Duan,Lakshmi Ananthakrishnan,Jeffrey B. Guild,Yin Xi,Prabhakar Rajiah
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02247-1
IF: 2.4
2019-10-05
Abdominal Radiology
Abstract:<h3 class="Heading">Purpose</h3><p class="Para">To compare radiation dose and image quality for abdominal CTs performed on a spectral detector CT (SDCT) and a comparable single-energy conventional CT scanner for patients of different sizes.</p><h3 class="Heading">Methods</h3><p class="Para">Four semi-anthropomorphic phantoms were scanned on an SDCT (IQon, Philips Healthcare) and a comparable single-energy CT (iCT 256, Philips Healthcare) under matched scan parameters. Image noise and radiation dose were compared. For the HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved retrospective cohort patient study, radiation dose was compared after adjusting for patient water equivalent diameter. Difference in subjective and objective image quality was assessed on a subset of 50 patients scanned on both scanners by two readers.</p><h3 class="Heading">Results</h3><p class="Para">CTDIvol and noise from SDCT were higher than conventional CT for all phantoms, with a relative difference of 7.8% (range 5.3–14%) for radiation dose and average difference of 9.0% (range 5.5–11%) for noise. 718 SDCT and 937 conventional CT patients were included in the patient study. CTDIvol for SDCT patients tends to be lower for smaller patients (− 2%, 95% confidence interval (− 5%, − 0.2%) for 200 mm water equivalent diameter) and higher for larger patients compared to conventional CT (8%, (6%, 11%) for 400 mm). No difference was seen for subjective image quality, SNR, CNR, or image noise between the two scanners, except for higher image noise in the portal vein and higher signal in the aorta on SDCT.</p><h3 class="Heading">Conclusion</h3><p class="Para">Radiation dose for abdominal CT performed on SDCT is similar to the dose on a conventional CT for average size patients, lower for smaller patients, and slightly higher for larger patients. Image quality is similar between the two scanners.</p>
radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging
-
Use of Enteric Contrast Material for Abdominopelvic CT in Penetrating Traumatic Injury in Adults: Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Mostafa Alabousi,Nanxi Zha,Michael N Patlas
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.24636
Abstract:BACKGROUND. Scarce evidence exists on the diagnostic benefit of enteric contrast administration for abdominopelvic CT performed in the setting of penetrating trauma. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CT using enteric contrast material with that of CT not using enteric contrast material in penetrating traumatic abdominopelvic injury in adults. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION. A protocol was registered a priori (PROSPERO CRD42019139613). MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched until June 25, 2019. Studies were included that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of abdominopelvic CT either with or without enteric (oral and/or rectal) contrast material in patients presenting with penetrating traumatic injury. Relevant study data metrics and risk of bias were assessed. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression modeling were performed to assess and compare diagnostic accuracies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS. From an initial sample of 829 studies, 12 studies were included that reported on 1287 patients with penetrating injury (389 with confirmed bowel, mesenteric, or other abdominopelvic organ injury). The enteric contrast material group (seven studies; 506 patients; 124 patients with confirmed penetrating injury) showed a sensitivity of 83.8% (95% CI, 73.7-90.5%) and specificity of 93.8% (95% CI, 83.6-97.8%). The group without enteric contrast administration (six studies; 781 patients; 265 patients with confirmed penetrating injury) showed a sensitivity of 93.0% (95% CI, 86.8-96.4%) and a specificity of 90.3% (95% CI, 81.4-95.2%). No statistically significant difference was identified for sensitivity (p = .07) or specificity (p = .37) between the groups with and without enteric contrast material according to meta-regression. Nine of 12 studies showed risk of bias in at least one QUADAS-2 domain (most frequently limited reporting of blinding of radiologists or lack of blinding of radiologists, insufficient clinical follow-up for the reference standard, and limited reporting of sampling methods). CONCLUSION. The use of enteric contrast material for CT does not provide a significant diagnostic benefit for penetrating traumatic injury. CLINICAL IMPACT. Eliminating enteric contrast administration for CT in penetrating traumatic injury can prevent delays in imaging and surgery and reduce cost.
-
Bowel Peristalsis Artifact on Dual-Energy CT: in Vitro Study on the Influence of Different Dual-Energy CT Platforms and Enteric Contrast Agents.
Markus M. Obmann,Yuxin Sun,Chansik An,Michael A. Ohliger,Zhen J. Wang,Benjamin M. Yeh
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.21.26345
2022-01-01
American Journal of Roentgenology
Abstract:BACKGROUND. The value of dual-energy CT (DECT) for bowel wall assessment is increasingly recognized. Although technical improvements reduce peristalsis artifact in conventional CT, the effects of peristalsis on DECT image reconstructions remain poorly studied. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different DECT scanners and enteric contrast agents on the severity of bowel peristalsis artifact in vitro. METHODS. To simulate bowel peristalsis, a 3-cm-diameter corrugated hollow tube representing the bowel was oscillated constantly in the z-axis within a larger water-filled cylinder. The bowel was serially filled with air, water, and iodinated or experimental dark contrast material and scanned on four different DECT platforms (spectral detector, rapid peak kilovoltage switching, split filter, and dual source) to reconstruct 120-kVp-like and iodine images. Two readers rated each image reconstruction for artifact severity from 0 (none) to 3 (severe) and recorded the degree to which iodine images depicted bowel wall hyperattenuation on 120-kVp-like images as artifactual. Artifact severity scores were compared by ANOVA with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS. Interrater agreement on artifact scores was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.79-0.84]). For 120-kVp-like images, mean peristalsis artifact scores were lower (all p < .001) for split-filter (1.47) and dual-source (1.86) scanners than for spectral-detector (2.58) and rapid-kilovoltage-switching (2.74) scanners. Compared with those on 120-kVp images, peristalsis artifacts on iodine images were less severe for spectral-detector (score, 1.03; p < .001) and rapid-kilovoltage-switching (2.09; p < .001) systems but more severe for dual-source (2.77; p < .001) and split-filter (2.62; p < .001) systems. Peristalsis artifact was rated less severe with experimental dark bowel contrast medium (score, 1.79) than with other bowel contrast agents (all p < .001). Iodine images helped identify bowel wall hyperattenuation as artifactual in 94.7% of reviewed cases for spectral-detector and 40.7% of cases for rapid-kilovoltage-switching scanners. CONCLUSION. For spectral-detector and rapid-kilovoltage-switching DECT, iodine images minimize peristalsis artifact, but for dual-source and split-filter DECT, mixed 120-kVp-like images are preferred. Compared with iodinated contrast material and water, experimental dark bowel contrast material reduces peristalsis artifact. CLINICAL IMPACT. Knowledge of the preferred images for reducing peristalsis artifact can lessen the effect of peristalsis on clinical DECT interpretation. Dark enteric contrast agents, when they become clinically available, may further reduce the effects of peristalsis.
-
The influence of low concentration iodinated contrast agent and low-dose CT scanning technique combined with body mass index on radiation dose and image quality of upper abdominal CT examinations
Zhipeng Gao,Z. Ye,Xubin Li,Jun Wang,Jian Chen,Bingyu Yao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1005-1201.2017.02.013
2017-02-10
Abstract:Objective
To investigate the influence of " double low" technology (low concentration iodinated contrast agent and low-dose scan) combined with body mass index (BMI) on radiation dose and image quality of contrast-enhanced upper abdominal CT examination.
Methods
One hundred and twenty patients who received upper abdominal enhanced CT examination were randomly divided into 4 groups: group A1, the iodinated contrast agent iodixanol (270 mg/ml), BMI<18.5 kg/m2 and 80 kVp; group A2, the iodinated contrast agent iodixanol (270 mg/ml), 18.5 kg/m2≤BMI≤24.9 kg/m2 and 100 kVp; group B1, the iodinated contrast agent ioversol (320 mg/ml), <18.5 kg/m2 and 120 kVp; group B2, the iodinated contrast agent ioversol (320 mg/ml), 18.5 kg/m2≤BMI≤24.9 kg/m2 and 120 kVp. Image quality was subjectively scored, the objective parameters (noise, CT values of abdominal aorta and liver parenchyma, contrast noise ratio of abdominal aorta and liver parenchyma) were evaluated and radiation dose was recorded. The differences of the indexes between A1 and B1 groups, A2 and B2 groups were compared with Mann-Whitney U test and pared-samples t test.
Results
All CT images were good. No images with 4 scores were obtained. No significant difference was found between group A1 and B1, between group A2 and B2 (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in contrast noise ratio of liver parenchyma (P>0.05), while significant differences existed in CT values of abdominal aorta and liver parenchyma, contrast noise ratio of abdominal aorta between group A1 and B1 (P<0.05). Significant differences existed in the parameters above mentioned between group A2 and B2, respectively (P<0.05). Radiation dose was lower in group A1 than in group B1 and in group A2 than in group B2 (P<0.05), respectively. Radiation dose was decreased by 40.1%(0.89/2.22) in group A1 than group B1 while radiation dose decreased by 56.9% (3.02/5.31) in group A2 than group B2.
Conclusion
According to BMI, the low concentration iodinated contrast agent and low-dose scan CT scanning technology could effectively reduce radiation dose and generate ideal images during the contrast-enhanced upper abdominal CT examination.
Key words:
Tomography, X-ray computed; Radiation dosage; Contrast media; Body weight
Medicine
-
Contrast Volume Reduction Adapted to Body Mass Index for 320-Slice Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: Results from Four-Year Clinical Routine at a Single Center
Suhua Li,Jinlai Liu,Long Peng,Huilan Wu,Chenlin Wang,Qiongqiong Ni,Yanting Luo,Lin Chen,Jieming Zhu,Ruimin Dong
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.12.106
IF: 4.039
2014-01-01
International Journal of Cardiology
Abstract:With high diagnostic performance, 320-slice computed tomography angiography (CTA) is a viable alternative to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) for ruling out coronary artery disease [ [1] Li S. Ni Q. Wu H. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 320-slice computed tomography angiography for detection of coronary artery stenosis: meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. Apr 5 2013; 168: 2699-2705 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar ]. However, the potential risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) in the process of CT scan is connected with increased morbidity, prolonged hospitalization, increased risk of complications, potential need for dialysis and increased mortality rate [ [2] Maliborski A. Zukowski P. Nowicki G. Bogusławska R. Contrast-induced nephropathy—a review of current literature and guidelines. Med Sci Monit. 2011; 17: RA199-RA204 Crossref PubMed Scopus (35) Google Scholar ]. Reduction of contrast volume, the key risk factor for CIN, is the most effective way for CIN prevention [ [3] Cigarroa R.G. Lange R.A. Williams R.H. Hillis L.D. Dosing of contrast material to prevent contrast nephropathy in patients with renal disease. Am J Med. 1989; 86: 649-652 Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (432) Google Scholar ]. Previous studies [ 4 Tatsugami F. Matsuki M. Nakai G. et al. Body size-adapted dose of contrast material and scanning protocol in 320-detector row CT coronary angiography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2011; 35: 475-479 Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar , 5 Tatsugami F. Matsuki M. Inada Y. et al. Feasibility of low-volume injections of contrast material with a body weight-adapted iodine-dose protocol in 320-detector row coronary CT angiography. Acad Radiol. 2010; 17: 207-211 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar ] have confirmed the feasibility of contrast material volume reduction with a body weight (BW)-adapted iodine-dose protocol in 320-slice coronary CTA. However, excessive contrast material may inadvertently be given in heavier patients when the dose is determined by BW only. Study showed that body mass index (BMI) has a positive linear influence on arterial attenuation with fixed iodine per BW [ [6] Zhu X. Zhu Y. Xu H. Yang G. Tang L. Xu Y. Dual-source CT coronary angiography involving injection protocol with iodine load tailored to patient body weight and body mass index: estimation of optimal contrast material dose. Acta Radiol. 2013; 54: 149-155 Crossref PubMed Scopus (11) Google Scholar ]. So, it is reasonable to establish an individualized contrast volume protocol adapted to BMI. This study aims to evaluate retrospectively whether reduction in contrast volume adapted to BMI affects the diagnostic accuracy of 320-slice CTA, with ICA as the reference standard.
-
Radiation dose and image quality of high-pitch emergency abdominal CT in obese patients using third-generation dual-source CT (DSCT)
Robert Forbrig,Michael Ingrisch,Robert Stahl,Katharina Stella Winter,Maximilian Reiser,Christoph G. Trumm
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52454-5
IF: 4.6
2019-11-04
Scientific Reports
Abstract:Abstract In this third-generation dual-source CT (DSCT) study, we retrospectively investigated radiation dose and image quality of portal-venous high-pitch emergency CT in 60 patients (28 female, mean age 56 years) with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m 2 . Patients were dichotomized in groups A (median BMI 31.5 kg/m 2 ; n = 33) and B (36.8 kg/m 2 ; n = 27). Volumetric CT dose index (CTDI vol ), size-specific dose estimate (SSDE), dose length product (DLP) and effective dose (ED) were assessed. Contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and dose-independent figure-of-merit (FOM) CNR were calculated. Subjective image quality was assessed using a five-point scale. Mean values of CTDI vol , SSDE as well as normalized DLP and ED were 7.6 ± 1.8 mGy, 8.0 ± 1.8 mGy, 304 ± 74 mGy * cm and 5.2 ± 1.3 mSv for group A, and 12.6 ± 3.7 mGy, 11.0 ± 2.6 mGy, 521 ± 157 mGy * cm and 8.9 ± 2.7 mSv for group B (p < 0.001). CNR of the liver and spleen as well as each calculated FOM CNR were significantly higher in group A (p 36.8 kg/m 2 .
multidisciplinary sciences
-
Pilot Study on Image Quality and Radiation Dose of CT Colonography with Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction Three-Dimensional
Hesong Shen,Dan Liang,Mingyue Luo,Chaijie Duan,Wenli Cai,Shanshan Zhu,Jianping Qiu,Wenru Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117116
IF: 3.7
2015-01-01
PLoS ONE
Abstract:Objective To investigate image quality and radiation dose of CT colonography (CTC) with adaptive iterative dose reduction three-dimensional (AIDR3D). Methods Ten segments of porcine colon phantom were collected, and 30 pedunculate polyps with diameters ranging from 1 to 15 mm were simulated on each segment. Image data were acquired with tube voltage of 120 kVp, and current doses of 10 mAs, 20 mAs, 30 mAs, 40 mAs, 50 mAs, respectively. CTC images were reconstructed using filtered back projection (FBP) and AIDR3D. Two radiologists blindly evaluated image quality. Quantitative evaluation of image quality included image noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR). Qualitative image quality was evaluated with a five-score scale. Radiation dose was calculated based on dose-length product. Ten volunteers were examined supine 50 mAs with FBP and prone 20 mAs with AIDR3D, and image qualities were assessed. Paired t test was performed for statistical analysis. Results For 20 mAs with AIDR3D and 50 mAs with FBP, image noise, SNRs and CNRs were (16.4 ± 1.6) HU vs. (16.8 ± 2.6) HU, 1.9 ± 0.2 vs. 1.9 ± 0.4, and 62.3 ± 6.8 vs. 62.0 ± 6.2, respectively; qualitative image quality scores were 4.1 and 4.3, respectively; their differences were all not statistically significant. Compared with 50 mAs with FBP, radiation dose (1.62 mSv) of 20 mAs with AIDR3D was decreased by 60.0%. There was no statistically significant difference in image noise, SNRs, CNRs and qualitative image quality scores between prone 20 mAs with AIDR3D and supine 50 mAs with FBP in 10 volunteers, the former reduced radiation dose by 61.1%. Conclusion Image quality of CTC using 20 mAs with AIDR3D could be comparable to standard 50 mAs with FBP, radiation dose of the former reduced by about 60.0% and was only 1.62 mSv.
-
An international survey to assess use of oral and rectal contrast in CT protocols for penetrating torso trauma
Cory J. Ozimok,Vincent M. Mellnick,Michael N. Patlas
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-018-1650-7
2018-10-21
Emergency Radiology
Abstract:<h3 class="a-plus-plus">Abstract</h3> <span class="a-plus-plus abstract-section id-a-sec1"> <h3 class="a-plus-plus">Purpose</h3> <p class="a-plus-plus">There is controversy regarding the administration of oral and rectal contrast for CT performed to detect bowel injury in the context of penetrating torso trauma. Given the lack of published societal guidelines, our goal was to survey radiologists from the American Society of Emergency Radiology membership database to determine consensus on CT protocols for penetrating trauma.</p> </span> <span class="a-plus-plus abstract-section id-a-sec2"> <h3 class="a-plus-plus">Methods</h3> <p class="a-plus-plus">With ethics board approval, an anonymous ten-question online survey was distributed via email to 589 radiologists in the American Society of Emergency Radiology (ASER) member database. The survey was open for a 4-week period in February 2018. A commercially available website that allows subscribers to create and analyze survey results was used for analysis.</p> </span> <span class="a-plus-plus abstract-section id-a-sec3"> <h3 class="a-plus-plus">Results</h3> <p class="a-plus-plus">We received 124 responses (21% response rate) with a majority from U.S. institutions (82%). Seventy-four percent of respondents indicated they do not routinely administer oral contrast in penetrating trauma, 68% do not administer rectal contrast, and 90% do not use commercially available software to assess penetrating injury trajectory. Results from U.S. and non-U.S. practices were comparable. The decision to administer intraluminal contrast is made by the referring physician at 52% of institutions. There is in-house attending level radiology coverage at 54% of institutions and when asked if trauma scans are reviewed before removing the patient from the table, 41% of respondents answered “No.”</p> </span> <span class="a-plus-plus abstract-section id-a-sec4"> <h3 class="a-plus-plus">Conclusion</h3> <p class="a-plus-plus">Enteric contrast is used in a minority of respondents’ centers for penetrating trauma cases, which is likely driven by a perceived lack of added benefit and delays in patient care.</p> </span>