OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the quality of enhancement and solid-organ lesion depiction using weight-based intravenous (IV) contrast dosing calculated by injector software versus fixed IV contrast dose in oncologic abdominal computed tomographic (CT) examinations. METHODS: This institutional review board-exempt retrospective cohort study included 134 patients who underwent single-phase abdominal CT before and after implementation of weight-based IV contrast injector software. Patient weight, height, body mass index, and body surface area were determined. Two radiologists qualitatively assessed examinations (4 indicating markedly superior to -4 indicating markedly inferior), and Hounsfield unit measurements were performed. RESULTS: Enhancement (estimated mean, -0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.19 to 0.09; P = 0.46) and lesion depiction (estimated mean, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.07; P = 0.79) scores did not differ between CT examinations using weight-based IV contrast versus fixed IV contrast dosing when a minimum of 38.5 g of iodine was used. However, the scores using weight-based IV contrast dosing were lower when the injector software calculated and delivered less than 38.5 g of iodine (estimated mean, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.06 to -0.56; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in measured Hounsfield units between the CT examinations using weight-based IV contrast dosing versus fixed IV contrast dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologic CT image quality was maintained or improved with weight-based IV contrast dosing using injector software when using a minimum amount of 38.5 g of iodine.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the quality of enhancement and solid-organ lesion depiction using weight-based intravenous (IV) contrast dosing calculated by injector software versus fixed IV contrast dose in oncologic abdominal computed tomographic (CT) examinations. METHODS: This institutional review board-exempt retrospective cohort study included 134 patients who underwent single-phase abdominal CT before and after implementation of weight-based IV contrast injector software. Patient weight, height, body mass index, and body surface area were determined. Two radiologists qualitatively assessed examinations (4 indicating markedly superior to -4 indicating markedly inferior), and Hounsfield unit measurements were performed. RESULTS: Enhancement (estimated mean, -0.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.19 to 0.09; P = 0.46) and lesion depiction (estimated mean, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.07; P = 0.79) scores did not differ between CT examinations using weight-based IV contrast versus fixed IV contrast dosing when a minimum of 38.5 g of iodine was used. However, the scores using weight-based IV contrast dosing were lower when the injector software calculated and delivered less than 38.5 g of iodine (estimated mean, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.06 to -0.56; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in measured Hounsfield units between the CT examinations using weight-based IV contrast dosing versus fixed IV contrast dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologic CT image quality was maintained or improved with weight-based IV contrast dosing using injector software when using a minimum amount of 38.5 g of iodine.
Authors: Corey T Jensen; Shiva Gupta; Mohammed M Saleh; Xinming Liu; Vincenzo K Wong; Usama Salem; Wei Qiao; Ehsan Samei; Nicolaus A Wagner-Bartak Journal: Radiology Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Corey T Jensen; Sanaz Javadi; Priya Bhosale; Ahmed W Moawad; Mohammed Saleh; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Ajaykumar C Morani Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-02-07