Literature DB >> 26150079

Quality of abdominal computed tomography angiography: hand versus mechanical intravenous contrast administration in children.

Rama S Ayyala1, David Zurakowski2, Edward Y Lee3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Abdominal CT angiography has been increasingly used for evaluation of various conditions related to abdominal vasculature in the pediatric population. However, no direct comparison has evaluated the quality of abdominal CT angiography in children using hand versus mechanical administration of intravenous (IV) contrast agent.
OBJECTIVE: To compare hand versus mechanical administration of IV contrast agent in the quality of abdominal CT angiography in the pediatric population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical record to identify pediatric patients (≤18 years) who had abdominal CT angiography between August 2012 and August 2013. The information obtained includes: (1) type of administration of IV contrast agent (hand [group 1] versus mechanical [group 2]), (2) size (gauge) of IV catheter, (3) amount of contrast agent administered and (4) rate of contrast agent administration (ml/s). Two reviewers independently performed qualitative and quantitative evaluation of abdominal CT angiography image quality. Qualitative evaluation of abdominal CT angiography image quality was performed by visual assessment of the degree of contrast enhancement in the region of interest (ROI) based on a 4-point scale. Quantitative evaluation of each CT angiography examination was performed by measuring the Hounsfield unit (HU) using an ROI within the abdominal aorta at two levels (celiac axis and the inferior mesenteric artery) for each child. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the F-test was applied to compare contrast enhancement within the abdominal aorta at two levels (celiac axis and inferior mesenteric artery) between hand administration and mechanical administration of IV contrast methods with adjustment for age.
RESULTS: We identified 46 pediatric patients (24 male, 22 female; mean age 7.3 ± 5.5 years; range 5 weeks to 18 years) with abdominal CT angiography performed during the study period. Of these patients, 16 (35%; 1.7 ± 2.2 years; range 5 weeks to 5 years) had hand administration of IV contrast agent and 30 (65%; 10.2 ± 4.2 years; range 4-18 years) had mechanical administration of IV contrast agent. All 46 abdominal CT angiography studies were of diagnostic quality based on qualitative evaluation (all ≥3). All abdominal CT angiography studies from both groups showed diagnostic quality of contrast enhancement (>150 HU) at both the celiac axis and the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) levels. The contrast enhancement of the abdominal aorta was not significantly different between the IV contrast administration methods at either the celiac axis level (360 ± 158 vs. 353 ± 116, P = 0.24) or the IMA level (340 ± 140 vs. 351 ± 90, P = 0.27), adjusting for age.
CONCLUSION: Diagnostic-quality abdominal CT angiography can be achieved using hand administration of IV contrast agent in infants and young children (≤5 years).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abdomen; Bolus tracking; Children; Computed tomography angiography; Contrast; Contrast enhancement; Hand injection; Mechanical injection

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26150079     DOI: 10.1007/s00247-015-3410-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Radiol        ISSN: 0301-0449


  14 in total

1.  Anatomical variations of the coeliac trunk and the mesenteric arteries evaluated with 64-row CT angiography.

Authors:  R Ferrari; C N De Cecco; F Iafrate; P Paolantonio; M Rengo; A Laghi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2007-10-21       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 2.  Review of CT angiography of aorta.

Authors:  Tongfu Yu; Xiaomei Zhu; Lijun Tang; Dehang Wang; Nael Saad
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.303

Review 3.  Scan and contrast administration principles of MDCT.

Authors:  Kyongtae Ty Bae; Jay P Heiken
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Pediatric abdominal CT angiography.

Authors:  Donald P Frush
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2008-05

5.  The role of CT angiography in the evaluation of pediatric renovascular hypertension.

Authors:  Jessica Kurian; Monica Epelman; Kassa Darge; Kevin Meyers; Els Nijs; Jeffrey C Hellinger
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2012-12-04

Review 6.  CT angiography in trauma.

Authors:  Jennifer W Uyeda; Stephan W Anderson; Osamu Sakai; Jorge A Soto
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.303

7.  Evaluation of contrast injection site effectiveness: thoracic CT angiography in children with hand injection of IV contrast material.

Authors:  Gary R Schooler; David Zurakowski; Edward Y Lee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  MDCT angiography of pediatric vascular diseases of the abdomen, pelvis, and extremities.

Authors:  Frandics P Chan; Geoffrey D Rubin
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2004-11-25

Review 9.  Multidetector CT evaluation of congenital lung anomalies.

Authors:  Edward Y Lee; Phillip M Boiselle; Robert H Cleveland
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 10.  Pediatric CT angiography.

Authors:  Marilyn J Siegel
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.