Literature DB >> 2801447

Contrast-enhanced CT of the liver and spleen: comparison of ionic and nonionic contrast agents.

R C Nelson1, J L Chezmar, J E Peterson, M E Bernardino.   

Abstract

We conducted a randomized, blinded, prospective study evaluating hepatic parenchymal density changes during dynamic bolus CT (180 ml of contrast material given IV) and delayed CT (5 hr after 60 g of iodine) in order to compare the enhancement characteristics of an ionic contrast agent (iothalamate-60) and two nonionic agents (iohexol-300 and iopamidol-300). A total of 75 patients with known or suspected cancer were studied (25 patients per contrast agent). After a baseline unenhanced CT scan was obtained, dynamic bolus and delayed CT scans were obtained for all patients with one of the three contrast agents. The density of the liver and spleen was measured in Hounsfield units (H) for unenhanced CT, dynamic bolus CT, and delayed CT. The average percentage of enhancement was calculated as follows: postcontrast density minus precontrast density was divided by precontrast density and then multiplied by 100. For dynamic bolus CT, the average percentage of enhancement of the liver was 105% when iohexol-300 was used, 98% when iopamidol-300 was used, and 83% when iothalamate-60 was used. No significant difference was seen between the postcontrast enhancement of the three contrast agents on dynamic bolus CT scans (p greater than .05). For delayed CT, the average percentage of enhancement of the liver was 34% when iothalamate-60 was used, 28% when iopamidol-300 was used, and 16% when iohexol-300 was used. Both iothalamate-60 and iopamidol-300 showed superior enhancement on delayed CT, compared with iohexol-300 (p = .0001). We conclude that for dynamic bolus CT, all three contrast agents are similar, with no statistically significant differences in postcontrast enhancement of the liver. For delayed CT, however, hepatic enhancement with iothalamate-60 and iopamidol-300 is statistically superior to that with iohexol-300.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2801447     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.153.5.973

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  7 in total

Review 1.  Molecular imaging with nucleic acid aptamers.

Authors:  H Hong; S Goel; Y Zhang; W Cai
Journal:  Curr Med Chem       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 4.530

2.  Pediatric hepatic CT: an injection protocol.

Authors:  K J Roche; N B Genieser; M M Ambrosino
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  1996

3.  Comparison of iohexol-240 versus iohexol-300 in abdominal CT.

Authors:  A A Singer; J R Tagliabue; D M Paushter; G P Borkowski; D M Einstein
Journal:  Gastrointest Radiol       Date:  1992

Review 4.  Advances in functional X-ray imaging techniques and contrast agents.

Authors:  Hongyu Chen; Melissa M Rogalski; Jeffrey N Anker
Journal:  Phys Chem Chem Phys       Date:  2012-10-21       Impact factor: 3.676

5.  What is a reliable CT scan for diagnosing splenosis under emergency conditions?

Authors:  Francesco Giuseppe Garaci; Michele Grande; Massimo Villa; Stefano Mancino; Daniel Konda; Grazia Maria Attinà; Gabriele Galatà; Giovanni Simonetti
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-08-07       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Potential dual imaging nanoparticle: Gd2O3 nanoparticle.

Authors:  Md Wasi Ahmad; Wenlong Xu; Sung June Kim; Jong Su Baeck; Yongmin Chang; Ji Eun Bae; Kwon Seok Chae; Ji Ae Park; Tae Jeong Kim; Gang Ho Lee
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-02-24       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Cholecystitis and Cholangitis during Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy in a Patient with Retroperitoneal Hemorrhage Requiring Large Amounts of Contrast Medium for the Assessment and Intervention.

Authors:  Kohsaku Goto; Yu Shimizu; Toshiya Kojima; Norifumi Takeda; Katsuhito Fujiu; Issei Komuro
Journal:  Intern Med       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 1.282

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.