Lisa M Ho1, Rendon C Nelson, David M Delong. 1. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC 27710, USA. ho000004@mc.duke.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the use of lean body weight (LBW) as the main determinant of the volume and rate of contrast material administration during multi-detector row computed tomography of the liver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval. All patients gave written informed consent. Four protocols were compared. Standard protocol involved 125 mL of iopamidol injected at 4 mL/sec. Total body weight (TBW) protocol involved 0.7 g iodine per kilogram of TBW. Calculated LBW and measured LBW protocols involved 0.86 g of iodine per kilogram and 0.92 g of iodine per kilogram calculated or measured LBW for men and women, respectively. Injection rate used for the three experimental protocols was determined proportionally on the basis of the calculated volume of contrast material. Postcontrast attenuation measurements during portal venous phase were obtained in liver, portal vein, and aorta for each group and were summed for each patient. Patient-to-patient enhancement variability in same group was measured with Levene test. Two-tailed t test was used to compare the three experimental protocols with the standard protocol. RESULTS: Data analysis was performed in 101 patients (25 or 26 patients per group), including 56 men and 45 women (mean age, 53 years). Average summed attenuation values for standard, TBW, calculated LBW, and measured LBW protocols were 419 HU +/- 50 (standard deviation), 443 HU +/- 51, 433 HU +/- 50, and 426 HU +/- 33, respectively (P = not significant for all). Levene test results for summed attenuation data for standard, TBW, calculated LBW, and measured LBW protocols were 40 +/- 29, 38 +/- 33 (P = .83), 35 +/- 35 (P = .56), and 26 +/- 19 (P = .05), respectively. CONCLUSION: By excluding highly variable but poorly perfused adipose tissue from calculation of contrast medium dose, the measured LBW protocol may lessen patient-to-patient enhancement variability while maintaining satisfactory hepatic and vascular enhancement.
PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the use of lean body weight (LBW) as the main determinant of the volume and rate of contrast material administration during multi-detector row computed tomography of the liver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval. All patients gave written informed consent. Four protocols were compared. Standard protocol involved 125 mL of iopamidol injected at 4 mL/sec. Total body weight (TBW) protocol involved 0.7 g iodine per kilogram of TBW. Calculated LBW and measured LBW protocols involved 0.86 g of iodine per kilogram and 0.92 g of iodine per kilogram calculated or measured LBW for men and women, respectively. Injection rate used for the three experimental protocols was determined proportionally on the basis of the calculated volume of contrast material. Postcontrast attenuation measurements during portal venous phase were obtained in liver, portal vein, and aorta for each group and were summed for each patient. Patient-to-patient enhancement variability in same group was measured with Levene test. Two-tailed t test was used to compare the three experimental protocols with the standard protocol. RESULTS: Data analysis was performed in 101 patients (25 or 26 patients per group), including 56 men and 45 women (mean age, 53 years). Average summed attenuation values for standard, TBW, calculated LBW, and measured LBW protocols were 419 HU +/- 50 (standard deviation), 443 HU +/- 51, 433 HU +/- 50, and 426 HU +/- 33, respectively (P = not significant for all). Levene test results for summed attenuation data for standard, TBW, calculated LBW, and measured LBW protocols were 40 +/- 29, 38 +/- 33 (P = .83), 35 +/- 35 (P = .56), and 26 +/- 19 (P = .05), respectively. CONCLUSION: By excluding highly variable but poorly perfused adipose tissue from calculation of contrast medium dose, the measured LBW protocol may lessen patient-to-patient enhancement variability while maintaining satisfactory hepatic and vascular enhancement.
Authors: A Guerrisi; D Marin; R C Nelson; G De Filippis; M Di Martino; H Barnhart; R Masciangelo; I Guerrisi; R Passariello; C Catalano Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Florian F Behrendt; Marilou Rebière; Andreas Goedicke; Hubertus Pietsch; Karin Palmowski; Christiane K Kuhl; Felix M Mottaghy; Frederik A Verburg Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Wen Jie Yang; Ke Min Chen; Bo Liu; Li Fang Pang; Huan Zhang; Zi Lai Pan; Fu Hua Yan Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 2.357