Literature DB >> 25239789

Intra-individual comparison of magnesium citrate and sodium phosphate for bowel preparation at CT colonography: automated volumetric analysis of residual fluid for quality assessment.

P Bannas1, J Bakke2, A Munoz del Rio2, P J Pickhardt2.   

Abstract

AIM: To perform an objective, intra-individual comparison of residual colonic fluid volume and attenuation associated with the current front-line laxative magnesium citrate (MgC) versus the former front-line laxative sodium phosphate (NaP) at CT colonography (CTC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study had institutional review board approval; informed consent was waived. The study cohort included 250 asymptomatic adults (mean age at index 56.1 years; 124 male/126 female) who underwent CTC screening twice over a 5 year interval. Colon catharsis at initial and follow-up screening employed single-dose NaP and double-dose MgC, respectively, allowing for intra-patient comparison. Automated volumetric analysis of residual colonic fluid volume and attenuation was performed on all 500 CTC studies. Colonic fluid volume <200 ml and mean attenuation between 300-900 HU were considered optimal. Paired t-test and McNemar's test were used to compare differences.
RESULTS: Residual fluid volumes <200 ml were recorded in 192 examinations (76.8%) following MgC and in 204 examinations (81.6%) following NaP (p = 0.23). The mean total residual fluid volume was 155 ± 114 ml for MgC and 143 ± 100 ml for NaP (p = 0.01). The attenuation range of 300-900 HU was significantly more frequent for MgC (n = 220, 88%) than for NaP (n = 127, 50.8%; p < 0.001). Mean fluid attenuation was significantly lower for MgC (700 ± 165 HU) than for NaP (878 ± 155 HU; p < 0.001). Concomitant presence of both optimal fluid volume and attenuation was significantly more frequent for MgC 65.2% than for NaP (38%; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Objective intra-individual comparison using automated volumetric analysis suggests that the replacement of NaP by MgC as the front-line laxative for CTC has not compromised overall examination quality.
Copyright © 2014 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25239789      PMCID: PMC4201391          DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2014.08.001

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


  28 in total

1.  Quantification of distention in CT colonography: development and validation of three computer algorithms.

Authors:  Peter W Hung; David S Paik; Sandy Napel; Judy Yee; R Brooke Jeffrey; Andreas Steinauer-Gebauer; Juno Min; Ashwin Jathavedam; Christopher F Beaulieu
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Screening CT colonography: how I do it.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Erratum to: automated volumetric analysis for comparison of oral sulfate solution (SUPREP) with established cathartic agents at CT colonography.

Authors:  Peter Bannas; Joshua Bakke; James L Patrick; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Abdom Imaging       Date:  2015-08

4.  Effect of different bowel preparations on residual fluid at CT colonography.

Authors:  M Macari; M Lavelle; I Pedrosa; A Milano; M Dicker; A J Megibow; X Xue
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  False-negative results at multi-detector row CT colonography: multivariate analysis of causes for missed lesions.

Authors:  Seong Ho Park; Hyun Kwon Ha; Min-Jeong Kim; Kyoung Won Kim; Ah Young Kim; Dong Hyun Yang; Moon-Gyu Lee; Pyo Nyun Kim; Yong Moon Shin; Suk-Kyun Yang; Seung-Jae Myung; Young Il Min
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-03-15       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Reduced cathartic bowel preparation for CT colonography: prospective comparison of 2-L polyethylene glycol and magnesium citrate.

Authors:  Alexander W Keedy; Judy Yee; Rizwan Aslam; Stefanie Weinstein; Luis A Landeras; Janak N Shah; Kenneth R McQuaid; Benjamin M Yeh
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-08-24       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Patient-controlled room air insufflation versus automated carbon dioxide delivery for CT colonography.

Authors:  Theodore J Shinners; Perry J Pickhardt; Andrew J Taylor; Debra A Jones; Cara H Olsen
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers.

Authors:  C Daniel Johnson; Mei-Hsiu Chen; Alicia Y Toledano; Jay P Heiken; Abraham Dachman; Mark D Kuo; Christine O Menias; Betina Siewert; Jugesh I Cheema; Richard G Obregon; Jeff L Fidler; Peter Zimmerman; Karen M Horton; Kevin Coakley; Revathy B Iyer; Amy K Hara; Robert A Halvorsen; Giovanna Casola; Judy Yee; Benjamin A Herman; Lawrence J Burgart; Paul J Limburg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-09-18       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia.

Authors:  David H Kim; Perry J Pickhardt; Andrew J Taylor; Winifred K Leung; Thomas C Winter; J Louis Hinshaw; Deepak V Gopal; Mark Reichelderfer; Richard H Hsu; Patrick R Pfau
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-10-04       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Computed tomographic colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm: model simulation with cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Cesare Hassan; Perry J Pickhardt; Perry Pickhardt; Andrea Laghi; Daniel H Kim; Daniel Kim; Angelo Zullo; Franco Iafrate; Lorenzo Di Giulio; Sergio Morini
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2008-04-14
View more
  2 in total

1.  Objective and Subjective Intrapatient Comparison of Iohexol Versus Diatrizoate for Bowel Preparation Quality at CT Colonography.

Authors:  Brandon Johnson; J Louis Hinshaw; Jessica B Robbins; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-03-24       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  CT colonography after incomplete optical colonoscopy: bowel preparation quality at same-day vs. deferred examination.

Authors:  Jake Theis; David H Kim; Meghan G Lubner; Alejandro Muñoz del Rio; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2016-01
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.