PURPOSE: We compared the fixed injection rate protocol (P2) with the fixed injection duration protocol (P1) for coronary CT angiography using the test bolus technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned 100 patients to one of two protocols. In P1, they received 0.7 mL/kg Iohexol-350 in an injection duration of 9 s, and we selected a delay of 3 s after peak enhancement of test bolus scan. In P2, they received 0.7 mL/kg Iohexol-350 at an injection rate of 5 mL/s, and we selected a delay after peak enhancement of test bolus scan using the following formula: TID/2-2 s, where TID is the injection duration of full bolus. We compared attenuation values in the ascending aorta and coronary arteries and patient-to-patient enhancement variability at each segment. RESULTS: At all segments, CT attenuations of P2 were significantly greater than those of P1 (ascending aorta 400 ± 64 vs. 368 ± 60, P = 0.01; left main trunk 399 ± 67 vs. 369 ± 55, P = 0.02; proximal-RCA 393 ± 66 vs. 363 ± 56, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in patient-to-patient enhancement variability at all segments between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: P2 yielded superior vessel enhancement and comparable patient-to-patient enhancement variability compared with P1 in thin patients.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We compared the fixed injection rate protocol (P2) with the fixed injection duration protocol (P1) for coronary CT angiography using the test bolus technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned 100 patients to one of two protocols. In P1, they received 0.7 mL/kg Iohexol-350 in an injection duration of 9 s, and we selected a delay of 3 s after peak enhancement of test bolus scan. In P2, they received 0.7 mL/kg Iohexol-350 at an injection rate of 5 mL/s, and we selected a delay after peak enhancement of test bolus scan using the following formula: TID/2-2 s, where TID is the injection duration of full bolus. We compared attenuation values in the ascending aorta and coronary arteries and patient-to-patient enhancement variability at each segment. RESULTS: At all segments, CT attenuations of P2 were significantly greater than those of P1 (ascending aorta 400 ± 64 vs. 368 ± 60, P = 0.01; left main trunk 399 ± 67 vs. 369 ± 55, P = 0.02; proximal-RCA 393 ± 66 vs. 363 ± 56, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in patient-to-patient enhancement variability at all segments between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: P2 yielded superior vessel enhancement and comparable patient-to-patient enhancement variability compared with P1 in thin patients.
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Erica Maffei; Anselmo Alessandro Palumbo; Roberto Malagò; Ludovico La Grutta; W Bob Meiijboom; Annachiara Aldrovandi; Michele Fusaro; Luigi Vignali; Alberto Menozzi; Valerio Brambilla; Paolo Coruzzi; Massimo Midiri; Miles A Kirchin; Nico R A Mollet; Gabriel P Krestin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-10-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Nico R Mollet; Pedro A Lemos; Fransesco Saia; Massimo Midiri; Pim J de Feyter; Gabriel P Krestin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J K Han; A Y Kim; K Y Lee; J B Seo; T K Kim; B I Choi; C S Lhee; M C Han Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2000 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Kyongtae T Bae; Brian A Seeck; Charles F Hildebolt; Cheng Tao; Fang Zhu; Masayuki Kanematsu; Pamela K Woodard Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Yu Chen; Huadan Xue; Zheng-yu Jin; Jie Zhang; Hao Sun; Xuan Wang; Zhu-hua Zhang; Da-ming Zhang; Guang-ming Lu; Zhao-qi Zhang; U Joseph Schoepf; Andreas M Bucher; Christopher D Wolla; Yun Wang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 3.240