OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to objectively and subjectively compare nonionic iohexol and ionic diatrizoate iodinated oral contrast agents as part of a cathartic bowel regimen within the same CT colonography (CTC) cohort, with otherwise identical preparations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 46 adults with no symptoms (mean age, 59.4 years; 26 men and 20 women) returning for follow-up CTC over a 9-month interval underwent the same bowel preparation with the exception of 75 mL of iohexol 350 in place of 60 mL of diatrizoate. All other preparation components (bisacodyl, magnesium citrate, and 2% barium) remained constant. Objective volumetric analysis of residual colonic fluid volume and fluid attenuation was performed. Additionally, two radiologists experienced with CTC who were blinded to the specific bowel preparation scored each of six colonic segments for adherent residual solid stool using a previously validated 4-point scale (0 for no stool; 1-3 for increasing residual stool). A paired t test was used for comparison of the cohorts. RESULTS: No clear clinically meaningful difference was found between the two preparations on overall objective or subjective evaluation. The mean (± SD) residual fluid volume was 173 ± 126 mL with the iohexol preparation and 130 ± 79 mL with the diatrizoate preparation (p = 0.02). The mean total colonic stool score was 2.5 (0.42/segment) with iohexol and 2.3 (0.38/segment) with diatrizoate (p = 0.69). The mean fluid attenuation was higher with iohexol (849 ± 270 HU) compared with diatrizoate (732 ± 168 HU) (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: On the basis of this direct intrapatient comparison, we found that oral iohexol is a suitable alternative to diatrizoate for fluid tagging as part of a cathartic bowel preparation at CTC. Because this nonionic tagging agent is more palatable, less expensive, and likely safer than ionic diatrizoate, our CTC program now uses iohexol as the standard recommended regimen.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to objectively and subjectively compare nonionic iohexol and ionic diatrizoate iodinated oral contrast agents as part of a cathartic bowel regimen within the same CT colonography (CTC) cohort, with otherwise identical preparations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 46 adults with no symptoms (mean age, 59.4 years; 26 men and 20 women) returning for follow-up CTC over a 9-month interval underwent the same bowel preparation with the exception of 75 mL of iohexol 350 in place of 60 mL of diatrizoate. All other preparation components (bisacodyl, magnesium citrate, and 2% barium) remained constant. Objective volumetric analysis of residual colonic fluid volume and fluid attenuation was performed. Additionally, two radiologists experienced with CTC who were blinded to the specific bowel preparation scored each of six colonic segments for adherent residual solid stool using a previously validated 4-point scale (0 for no stool; 1-3 for increasing residual stool). A paired t test was used for comparison of the cohorts. RESULTS: No clear clinically meaningful difference was found between the two preparations on overall objective or subjective evaluation. The mean (± SD) residual fluid volume was 173 ± 126 mL with the iohexol preparation and 130 ± 79 mL with the diatrizoate preparation (p = 0.02). The mean total colonic stool score was 2.5 (0.42/segment) with iohexol and 2.3 (0.38/segment) with diatrizoate (p = 0.69). The mean fluid attenuation was higher with iohexol (849 ± 270 HU) compared with diatrizoate (732 ± 168 HU) (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: On the basis of this direct intrapatient comparison, we found that oral iohexol is a suitable alternative to diatrizoate for fluid tagging as part of a cathartic bowel preparation at CTC. Because this nonionic tagging agent is more palatable, less expensive, and likely safer than ionic diatrizoate, our CTC program now uses iohexol as the standard recommended regimen.
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; J Richard Choi; Inku Hwang; James A Butler; Michael L Puckett; Hans A Hildebrandt; Roy K Wong; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; William R Schindler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David H Kim; Perry J Pickhardt; J Louis Hinshaw; Andrew J Taylor; Rajat Mukherjee; Patrick R Pfau Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Ifeanyi Mbah; B Dustin Pooler; Oliver T Chen; J Louis Hinshaw; Jennifer M Weiss; David H Kim Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Peter M Graffy; Benjamin Weigman; Nimrod Deiss-Yehiely; Cesare Hassan; Jennifer M Weiss Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-08-11 Impact factor: 11.105