Literature DB >> 21147296

Reducing the oral contrast dose in CT colonography: evaluation of faecal tagging quality and patient acceptance.

M H Liedenbaum1, M J Denters, F M Zijta, V F van Ravesteijn, S Bipat, F M Vos, E Dekker, J Stoker.   

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the minimal iodine contrast medium load necessary for an optimal computed tomography colonography tagging quality.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Faecal occult blood test positive patients were randomly selected for one of three iodine bowel preparations: (1) 3 × 50 ml meglumine ioxithalamate (45 g iodine), (2) 4 × 25 ml meglumine ioxithalamate (30 g iodine); or (3) 3 × 25 ml (22.5 g iodine) meglumine ioxithalamate. Two experienced readers assessed the tagging quality per colonic segment on a five-point scale and the presence of adherent stool. Also semi-automatic homogeneity measurements were performed. Patient acceptance was assessed with questionnaires.
RESULTS: Of 70 eligible patients, 45 patients participated (25 males, mean age 62 years). Each preparation group contained 15 patients. The quality of tagging was insufficient (score 1-2) in 0% of segments in group 1; 4% in group 2 (p<0.01 versus group 1); and 5% in group 3 (p=0.06 versus group 1). In group 1 in 11% of the segments adherent stool was present compared with 49% in group 2 and 41% in group 3 (p<0.01, group 2 and 3 versus group 1). Homogeneity was 85, 102 (p<0.01), and 91 SD HU (p=0.26) in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In group 1 two patients experienced no burden after contrast agent ingestion compared to one patient in group 2 and nine patients in group 3 (p=0.017).
CONCLUSION: A dose of 3 × 50 ml meglumine ioxithalamate is advisable for an optimal tagging quality despite beneficial effects on the patient acceptance in patients receiving a lower dose.
Copyright © 2010 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21147296     DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2010.06.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Radiol        ISSN: 0009-9260            Impact factor:   2.350


  13 in total

1.  Patients' experience of screening CT colonography with reduced and full bowel preparation in a randomised trial.

Authors:  Lapo Sali; Leonardo Ventura; Grazia Grazzini; Alessandra Borgheresi; Silvia Delsanto; Massimo Falchini; Beatrice Mallardi; Paola Mantellini; Stefano Milani; Stefano Pallanti; Marco Zappa; Mario Mascalchi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Evaluation of two minimal-preparation regimes for CT colonography: optimising image quality and patient acceptability.

Authors:  A Pollentine; A Mortimer; P McCoubrie; L Archer
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Acceptability of oral iodinated contrast media: a head-to-head comparison of four media.

Authors:  A Pollentine; E Ngan-Soo; P McCoubrie
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Virtual colonoscopy: Utility, impact and overview.

Authors:  Dhakshina Ganeshan; Khaled M Elsayes; David Vining
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2013-03-28

5.  Evolution of Screen-Detected Small (6-9 mm) Polyps After a 3-Year Surveillance Interval: Assessment of Growth With CT Colonography Compared With Histopathology.

Authors:  Charlotte J Tutein Nolthenius; Thierry N Boellaard; Margriet C de Haan; C Yung Nio; Maarten G J Thomeer; Shandra Bipat; Alexander D Montauban van Swijndregt; Marc J van de Vijver; Katharina Biermann; Ernst J Kuipers; Evelien Dekker; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 10.864

6.  CT colonography without cathartic preparation: positive predictive value and patient experience in clinical practice.

Authors:  Carmen Zueco Zueco; Carolina Sobrido Sampedro; Juan D Corroto; Paula Rodriguez Fernández; Manuela Fontanillo Fontanillo
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-01-14       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Pilot study on efficacy of reduced cathartic bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl.

Authors:  Zhi-Yuan Chen; He-Song Shen; Ming-Yue Luo; Chai-Jie Duan; Wen-Li Cai; Hong-Bing Lu; Guo-Peng Zhang; Yang Liu; Jerome Z Liang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  The potential of imaging techniques as a screening tool for colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Marjolein J E Greuter; Johannes Berkhof; Remond J A Fijneman; Erhan Demirel; Jie-Bin Lew; Gerrit A Meijer; Jaap Stoker; Veerle M H Coupé
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  A multi-centre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the value of a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT colonography.

Authors:  Thierry N Boellaard; Marije P van der Paardt; Markus W Hollmann; Susanne Eberl; Jan Peringa; Lex J Schouten; Giedre Kavaliauskiene; Jurgen H Runge; Jeroen A W Tielbeek; Jaap Stoker
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-05-25       Impact factor: 3.067

10.  The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography.

Authors:  Emanuele Neri; Steve Halligan; Mikael Hellström; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Daniele Regge; Jaap Stoker; Stuart Taylor; Andrea Laghi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-09-15       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.