Pamela T Johnson1, Gale M Christensen, Elliot K Fishman. 1. 1 All authors: The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 601 North Caroline St, Rm 3140D, Baltimore, MD 21287.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of a 20-gauge fenestrated catheter with an 18-gauge nonfenestrated catheter for i.v. contrast infusion during MDCT. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Two hundred five adult outpatients imaged on a dual-source 128-MDCT scanner with arterial phase body CT (flow rates, 5.0-7.5 mL/s) were randomized to either an 18-gauge nonfenestrated or 20-gauge fenestrated catheter. After randomization, any 18-gauge nonfenestrated subjects whose veins were deemed insufficient for that catheter gauge were assigned to a third cohort for placement of a 20-gauge fenestrated catheter. Catheter placement success, infusion rate, contrast volume, maximum pressure, complications, and aortic enhancement levels were recorded. RESULTS: Catheters were placed on the first attempt in 97% (100/103) for 18-gauge nonfenestrated and 94% (96/102) for 20-gauge fenestrated placements and in two or fewer attempts in 99% of both groups. Mean infusion rates (5.74 mL/s for 18-gauge nonfenestrated and 5.58 mL/s for 20-gauge fenestrated placements) and aortic enhancement levels were not significantly different. Maximum pressure was higher with 20-gauge fenestrated catheters (mean ± SD, 230.5 ± 27.6 pounds per square inch [psi]) than 18-gauge nonfenestrated catheters (mean ± SD 215.6 ± 32.8 psi) (p = 0.002). One subject with an 18-gauge nonfenestrated catheter had a high-pressure alarm. In the third cohort, a 20-gauge fenestrated catheter was successfully placed in two or fewer attempts in 85% (28/33), with one minor extravasation attributed to vein insufficiency. CONCLUSION: A 20-gauge fenestrated catheter performs similarly to an 18-gauge nonfenestrated catheter with respect to i.v. contrast infusion rates and aortic enhancement levels and can be placed in most subjects whose veins are deemed insufficient for an 18-gauge catheter.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of a 20-gauge fenestrated catheter with an 18-gauge nonfenestrated catheter for i.v. contrast infusion during MDCT. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Two hundred five adult outpatients imaged on a dual-source 128-MDCT scanner with arterial phase body CT (flow rates, 5.0-7.5 mL/s) were randomized to either an 18-gauge nonfenestrated or 20-gauge fenestrated catheter. After randomization, any 18-gauge nonfenestrated subjects whose veins were deemed insufficient for that catheter gauge were assigned to a third cohort for placement of a 20-gauge fenestrated catheter. Catheter placement success, infusion rate, contrast volume, maximum pressure, complications, and aortic enhancement levels were recorded. RESULTS: Catheters were placed on the first attempt in 97% (100/103) for 18-gauge nonfenestrated and 94% (96/102) for 20-gauge fenestrated placements and in two or fewer attempts in 99% of both groups. Mean infusion rates (5.74 mL/s for 18-gauge nonfenestrated and 5.58 mL/s for 20-gauge fenestrated placements) and aortic enhancement levels were not significantly different. Maximum pressure was higher with 20-gauge fenestrated catheters (mean ± SD, 230.5 ± 27.6 pounds per square inch [psi]) than 18-gauge nonfenestrated catheters (mean ± SD 215.6 ± 32.8 psi) (p = 0.002). One subject with an 18-gauge nonfenestrated catheter had a high-pressure alarm. In the third cohort, a 20-gauge fenestrated catheter was successfully placed in two or fewer attempts in 85% (28/33), with one minor extravasation attributed to vein insufficiency. CONCLUSION: A 20-gauge fenestrated catheter performs similarly to an 18-gauge nonfenestrated catheter with respect to i.v. contrast infusion rates and aortic enhancement levels and can be placed in most subjects whose veins are deemed insufficient for an 18-gauge catheter.
Authors: Michael R Kramer; Nishi Bhagat; Susan J Back; Laura Poznick; Flemming Forsberg; Kassa Darge; John R Eisenbrey Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2017-09-11
Authors: Vincent Cascio; Man Hon; Linda B Haramati; Animesh Gour; Peter Spiegler; Sanjeev Bhalla; Douglas S Katz Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Giles Roditi; Nadir Khan; Aart J van der Molen; Marie-France Bellin; Michele Bertolotto; Torkel Brismar; Jean-Michel Correas; Ilona A Dekkers; Remy W F Geenen; Gertraud Heinz-Peer; Andreas H Mahnken; Carlo C Quattrocchi; Alexander Radbruch; Peter Reimer; Laura Romanini; Fulvio Stacul; Henrik S Thomsen; Olivier Clément Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Andreas Marco Fischer; Philipp Riffel; Thomas Henzler; U Joseph Schoepf; Andres F Abadia; Richard Robert Bayer; Holger Haubenreisser; Dante Giovagnoli; Alexander Kremer; Stefan O Schoenberg; Joshua Gawlitza Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 3.240