PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare enhancement quality, performance efficiency, technologists' satisfaction, and operation costs between 2 different power injectors (PIs) in an outpatient setting. METHODS: In this prospective study, 275 consecutive outpatients (135 men, 140 women) scheduled forcontrast-enhanced CT (CECT) were randomized and scanned using either of 2 multidetector CT scanners (16 adjacently placed detectors) fitted with a dual-syringe contrast injector or a syringeless contrast injector. The corresponding CECT studies were subjectively reviewed by 2 radiologists in consensus to rate the quality of contrast enhancement in each study. The equipment preparation time (contrast media [CM], saline loading), releasing time (unloading of saline and CM), and CM wastage incurred for each PI were recorded by one operator. Technologists' satisfaction with the use of the PIs was rated on a 10-point scale. Statistical analyses were performed using Student's t tests. RESULTS:A total of 140 patients were examined using the dual-syringe system, and 135 with the syringeless system, and CECT examination quality was comparable for both PI systems (P > .05). Equipment preparation time and releasing time per examination for dual-syringe and syringeless PIs were 139 ± 39 and 32 ± 14 seconds and 48 ± 31 and 8 ± 3 seconds, respectively (P < .001). On average, 11 mL CM wastage per examination was observed with the dual-syringe PI and 0 mL with the syringeless PI (P < .001). Technologists had higher satisfaction with the syringeless PI than the dual-syringe system (9.3 vs 6.3, P < .01). Because of improved efficiency, 2.6 additional patients per day were examined in the room using the syringeless PI. CONCLUSION: Given comparable CECT examination quality, the syringeless PI was more user-friendly and improved outpatient CT workflow and CT throughput while allowing 11-mL CM saving per examination compared with the dual-syringe injector.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare enhancement quality, performance efficiency, technologists' satisfaction, and operation costs between 2 different power injectors (PIs) in an outpatient setting. METHODS: In this prospective study, 275 consecutive outpatients (135 men, 140 women) scheduled for contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) were randomized and scanned using either of 2 multidetector CT scanners (16 adjacently placed detectors) fitted with a dual-syringe contrast injector or a syringeless contrast injector. The corresponding CECT studies were subjectively reviewed by 2 radiologists in consensus to rate the quality of contrast enhancement in each study. The equipment preparation time (contrast media [CM], saline loading), releasing time (unloading of saline and CM), and CM wastage incurred for each PI were recorded by one operator. Technologists' satisfaction with the use of the PIs was rated on a 10-point scale. Statistical analyses were performed using Student's t tests. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients were examined using the dual-syringe system, and 135 with the syringeless system, and CECT examination quality was comparable for both PI systems (P > .05). Equipment preparation time and releasing time per examination for dual-syringe and syringeless PIs were 139 ± 39 and 32 ± 14 seconds and 48 ± 31 and 8 ± 3 seconds, respectively (P < .001). On average, 11 mL CM wastage per examination was observed with the dual-syringe PI and 0 mL with the syringeless PI (P < .001). Technologists had higher satisfaction with the syringeless PI than the dual-syringe system (9.3 vs 6.3, P < .01). Because of improved efficiency, 2.6 additional patients per day were examined in the room using the syringeless PI. CONCLUSION: Given comparable CECT examination quality, the syringeless PI was more user-friendly and improved outpatient CT workflow and CT throughput while allowing 11-mL CM saving per examination compared with the dual-syringe injector.