OBJECTIVE: To compare the image quality of conventional arterial and portal venous (PV) phase multidetector CT (MDCT) with two biphasic injection protocols in polytrauma patients. METHODS: 60 consecutive patients with polytrauma underwent body 256-slice MDCT with a conventional protocol or 1 of 2 single-pass biphasic protocols: Group A, arterial (30 s) and PV (60 s) phase acquisitions; Group B, "biphasic" contrast injection with a single acquisition at 60 s; and Group C, "modified biphasic" injection with a single acquisition at a 70-s delay. Images were analyzed for arterial, venous and parenchymal attenuation profiles with regions of interest in the major arteries, veins and solid abdominal organs. A 5-point scoring system was used to assess the image quality, with 5 representing excellent arterial, venous and parenchymal opacification and <3 representing non-diagnostic opacification. In addition, the effective dose (millisieverts) was compared between the groups. RESULTS: In 93% of patients, image quality was scored as good or excellent (≥4). All studies were of satisfactory diagnostic quality. Overall, venous and arterial attenuation profiles were comparable. Attenuation profiles in the solid abdominal viscera were significantly higher (p < 0.01) using both biphasic protocols than with arterial or PV phase of conventional protocols. Effective doses were higher in Group A. CONCLUSION: Comparable image quality can be achieved using a biphasic i.v. contrast injection protocol with single MDCT acquisition with less radiation and reduction in acquisition time. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: For these particular biphasic injection protocols, we have shown that image quality is comparable with a conventional protocol. This has been achieved by comparing enhanced densities of specific structures, as well as gestalt scoring by assessors, on a 256-slice MDCT.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the image quality of conventional arterial and portal venous (PV) phase multidetector CT (MDCT) with two biphasic injection protocols in polytraumapatients. METHODS: 60 consecutive patients with polytrauma underwent body 256-slice MDCT with a conventional protocol or 1 of 2 single-pass biphasic protocols: Group A, arterial (30 s) and PV (60 s) phase acquisitions; Group B, "biphasic" contrast injection with a single acquisition at 60 s; and Group C, "modified biphasic" injection with a single acquisition at a 70-s delay. Images were analyzed for arterial, venous and parenchymal attenuation profiles with regions of interest in the major arteries, veins and solid abdominal organs. A 5-point scoring system was used to assess the image quality, with 5 representing excellent arterial, venous and parenchymal opacification and <3 representing non-diagnostic opacification. In addition, the effective dose (millisieverts) was compared between the groups. RESULTS: In 93% of patients, image quality was scored as good or excellent (≥4). All studies were of satisfactory diagnostic quality. Overall, venous and arterial attenuation profiles were comparable. Attenuation profiles in the solid abdominal viscera were significantly higher (p < 0.01) using both biphasic protocols than with arterial or PV phase of conventional protocols. Effective doses were higher in Group A. CONCLUSION: Comparable image quality can be achieved using a biphasic i.v. contrast injection protocol with single MDCT acquisition with less radiation and reduction in acquisition time. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: For these particular biphasic injection protocols, we have shown that image quality is comparable with a conventional protocol. This has been achieved by comparing enhanced densities of specific structures, as well as gestalt scoring by assessors, on a 256-slice MDCT.
Authors: Duy Nguyen; Alexandra Platon; Kathirkamanathan Shanmuganathan; Stuart E Mirvis; Christoph D Becker; Pierre-Alexandre Poletti Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: R E Bechtold; M Y Chen; D J Ott; R J Zagoria; E S Scharling; N T Wolfman; D J Vining Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1997 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Christos Loupatatzis; Sebastian Schindera; Jan Gralla; Hanno Hoppe; Jan Bittner; Ralph Schröder; Sudesh Srivastav; Harald Marcel Bonel Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-02-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Stefan Huber-Wagner; Rolf Lefering; Lars-Mikael Qvick; Markus Körner; Michael V Kay; Klaus-Jürgen Pfeifer; Maximilian Reiser; Wolf Mutschler; Karl-Georg Kanz Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ulrich Linsenmaier; Michael Krötz; Hannes Häuser; Clemens Rock; Johannes Rieger; Klaus Bohndorf; Klaus Jürgen Pfeifer; Maximilian Reiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2001-12-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Carlos A Ordoñez; Michael W Parra; Alfonso Holguín; Carlos García; Mónica Guzmán-Rodríguez; Natalia Padilla; Yaset Caicedo; Claudia Orlas; Alberto García; Fernando Rodríguez-Holguín; José Julián Serna; Carlos Serna Journal: Colomb Med (Cali) Date: 2020-12-30
Authors: Stefan Wirth; Julian Hebebrand; Raffaella Basilico; Ferco H Berger; Ana Blanco; Cem Calli; Maureen Dumba; Ulrich Linsenmaier; Fabian Mück; Konraad H Nieboer; Mariano Scaglione; Marc-André Weber; Elizabeth Dick Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2020-12-10
Authors: Carlos Ordoñez; Carlos García; Michael W Parra; Edison Angamarca; Mónica Guzmán-Rodríguez; Claudia P Orlas; Juan Pablo Herrera-Escobar; Erika Rincón; Juan José Meléndez; Jose Julián Serna; Natalia Padilla; Ana Milena Del Valle; Alberto F García; Alfonso Holguín Journal: Colomb Med (Cali) Date: 2020-03-30