Yoriaki Matsumoto1,2, Toru Higaki3, Takanori Masuda4,3, Tomoyasu Sato5, Yuko Nakamura3, Fuminari Tatsugami3, Kazuo Awai3. 1. Department of Radiological Technology, Tsuchiya General Hospital, 3-30 Nakajima-cho, Naka-ku, Hiroshima, 730-8655, Japan. yori_8592_8592@yahoo.co.jp. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan. yori_8592_8592@yahoo.co.jp. 3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551, Japan. 4. Department of Radiological Technology, Tsuchiya General Hospital, 3-30 Nakajima-cho, Naka-ku, Hiroshima, 730-8655, Japan. 5. Department of Radiology, Tsuchiya General Hospital, 3-30 Nakajima-cho, Naka-ku, Hiroshima, 730-8655, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical utility of our newly developed contrast enhancement optimizer (CEO) software for coronary CT angiography (CCTA). METHODS: We randomly assigned 295 patients (168 males, 127 females, median age 71 years) undergoing CCTA to one of two contrast media injection protocols. Group A (n = 150) was injected with a CEO-selected iodine dose based on patient factors. In group B (n = 145), we used our standard protocol (245 mg I/kg). We recorded the CT number in the ascending aorta and determined whether the CT number was equivalent in groups A and B. For the equivalence test, we adopted 75 Hounsfield units (HU) as the equivalence margin. The standard deviation in the CT number and the rate of patients with an acceptable CT number were compared using the F test and the chi-square test, respectively. RESULTS: The iodine dose in group A was significantly smaller than that in group B (235.7 vs. 253.6 mg I/kg, p < 0.001). The CT number of the ascending aorta was 428.6 ± 55.5 HU in group A and 436.1 ± 68.7 HU in group B; the 95% confidence interval for the difference between the groups was -4.3 HU to 16.9 HU and within the range of the predetermined equivalence margins. In group A, the variance was significantly smaller than that in group B (p = 0.009). The number of patients with an acceptable CT number was significantly higher in group A than in group B (84.7% vs. 71.7%, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The use of our CEO for CCTA studies yielded optimal aortic contrast enhancement in significantly more patients than the standard protocol based on the body weight. KEY POINTS: • With our contrast enhancement optimizer (CEO) software, optimal and stable aortic enhancement can be obtained on coronary CT angiography scans irrespective of patient factors. • Management of contrast media becomes more appropriate by the CEO software. • The CEO software can control contrast enhancement at different tube voltage levels.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical utility of our newly developed contrast enhancement optimizer (CEO) software for coronary CT angiography (CCTA). METHODS: We randomly assigned 295 patients (168 males, 127 females, median age 71 years) undergoing CCTA to one of two contrast media injection protocols. Group A (n = 150) was injected with a CEO-selected iodine dose based on patient factors. In group B (n = 145), we used our standard protocol (245 mg I/kg). We recorded the CT number in the ascending aorta and determined whether the CT number was equivalent in groups A and B. For the equivalence test, we adopted 75 Hounsfield units (HU) as the equivalence margin. The standard deviation in the CT number and the rate of patients with an acceptable CT number were compared using the F test and the chi-square test, respectively. RESULTS: The iodine dose in group A was significantly smaller than that in group B (235.7 vs. 253.6 mg I/kg, p < 0.001). The CT number of the ascending aorta was 428.6 ± 55.5 HU in group A and 436.1 ± 68.7 HU in group B; the 95% confidence interval for the difference between the groups was -4.3 HU to 16.9 HU and within the range of the predetermined equivalence margins. In group A, the variance was significantly smaller than that in group B (p = 0.009). The number of patients with an acceptable CT number was significantly higher in group A than in group B (84.7% vs. 71.7%, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The use of our CEO for CCTA studies yielded optimal aortic contrast enhancement in significantly more patients than the standard protocol based on the body weight. KEY POINTS: • With our contrast enhancement optimizer (CEO) software, optimal and stable aortic enhancement can be obtained on coronary CT angiography scans irrespective of patient factors. • Management of contrast media becomes more appropriate by the CEO software. • The CEO software can control contrast enhancement at different tube voltage levels.
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Nico Mollet; Aad van der Lugt; Koen Nieman; Peter M T Pattynama; Pim J de Feyter; Gabriel P Krestin Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-12-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Nico R Mollet; Pedro A Lemos; Fransesco Saia; Massimo Midiri; Pim J de Feyter; Gabriel P Krestin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Filippo Cademartiri; Koen Nieman; Aad van der Lugt; Rolf H Raaijmakers; Nico Mollet; Peter M T Pattynama; Pim J de Feyter; Gabriel P Krestin Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-29 Impact factor: 11.105