Automated volumetric analysis for comparison of oral sulfate solution (SUPREP) with established cathartic agents at CT colonography

Comparison of MiraLAX and magnesium citrate for bowel preparation at CT colonography

PURPOSE

To compare MiraLAX, a hypo-osmotic lavage, and magnesium citrate (MgC), a hyper-osmotic agent for bowel preparation at CTC.

METHODS

398 total screening CTC studies were included in this retrospective, single institution study. 297 underwent preparation with a double-dose MgC regimen (mean age, 61 ± 5.5 years; 142 male/155 female) and 101 with 8.3 oz (equivalent to 238 g PEG) of MiraLAX (mean age, 60 ± 9.6 years; 45 male/56 female). Oral contrast for tagging purposes was utilized in both regimens. Studies were retrospectively analyzed for residual fluid volume and attenuation by automated analysis, as well for subjective oral contrast coating of the normal colonic wall and polyps. 50 patients underwent successive CTC studies utilizing each agent (mean, 6.1 ± 1.7 years apart), allowing for intra-patient comparison. Chi-squared, Fisher's exact, McNemar, and t-tests were used for data comparison.

RESULTS

Residual fluid volume (as percentage of total colonic volume) and fluid density was 7.2 ± 4.2% and 713 ± 183 HU for the MgC cohort and 8.7 ± 3.8% and 1044 HU ± 274 for the MiraLAX cohort, respectively (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Similar results were observed for the intra-patient cohort. Colonic wall coating negatively influencing interpretation was noted in 1.7% of MgC vs. 6.9% of MiraLAX examinations (p = 0.008). Polyps were detected in 12% of all MgC vs. 16% of all MiraLAX CTCs (p = 0.29).

CONCLUSION

CTC bowel preparation with the hypo-osmotic MiraLAX agent appears to provide acceptable diagnostic quality that is comparable to the hyper-osmotic MgC agent, especially when factoring in patient safety and tolerance.

Objective and Subjective Intrapatient Comparison of Iohexol Versus Diatrizoate for Bowel Preparation Quality at CT Colonography

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.

CT colonography after incomplete optical colonoscopy: bowel preparation quality at same-day vs. deferred examination

PURPOSE

To objectively compare the volume, density, and distribution of luminal fluid for same-day oral-contrast-enhanced CTC following incomplete optical colonoscopy (OC) vs. deferred CTC on a separate day utilizing a dedicated CTC bowel preparation.

METHODS

HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved retrospective study compared 103 same-day CTC studies after incomplete OC (utilizing 30 mL oral diatrizoate) against 151 CTC examinations performed on a separate day after failed OC using a dedicated CTC bowel preparation (oral magnesium citrate/dilute barium/diatrizoate the evening before). A subgroup of 15 patients who had both same-day CTC and separate-day routine CTC was also identified and underwent separate analysis. CTC exams were analyzed for opacified fluid distribution within the GI tract, as well as density and volume. Data were analyzed utilizing Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests.

RESULTS

Opacified luminal fluid extended to the rectum in 56% (58/103) of same-day CTC vs. 100% (151/151) of deferred separate-day CTC (p < 0.0001). For same-day CTC, contrast failed to reach the colon in 11% (11/103) and failed to reach the left colon in 26% (27/103). Volumetric colonic fluid segmentation for fluid analysis (successful in 80 same-day and 147 separate-day cases) showed significantly more fluid in the same-day cohort (mean, 227 vs. 166 mL; p < 0.0001); the actual difference is underestimated due to excluded cases. Mean colonic fluid attenuation was significantly lower in the same-day cohort (545 vs. 735 HU; p < 0.0001). Similar findings were identified in the smaller cohort with direct intra-patient CTC comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

Dedicated CTC bowel preparation on a separate day following incomplete OC results in a much higher quality examination compared with same-day CTC.

Prior Image Constrained Compressed Sensing Metal Artifact Reduction (PICCS-MAR): 2D and 3D Image Quality Improvement with Hip Prostheses at CT Colonography

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of the prior-image-constrained-compressed-sensing-based metal-artefact-reduction (PICCS-MAR) algorithm on streak artefact reduction and 2D and 3D-image quality improvement in patients with total hip arthroplasty (THA) undergoing CT colonography (CTC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PICCS-MAR was applied to filtered-back-projection (FBP)-reconstructed DICOM CTC-images in 52 patients with THA (unilateral, n = 30; bilateral, n = 22). For FBP and PICCS-MAR series, ROI-measurements of CT-numbers were obtained at predefined levels for fat, muscle, air, and the most severe artefact. Two radiologists independently reviewed 2D and 3D CTC-images and graded artefacts and image quality using a five-point-scale (1 = severe streak/no-diagnostic confidence, 5 = no streak/excellent image-quality, high-confidence). Results were compared using paired and unpaired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank and Mann-Whitney-tests.

RESULTS

Streak artefacts and image quality scores for FBP versus PICCS-MAR 2D-images (median: 1 vs. 3 and 2 vs. 3, respectively) and 3D images (median: 2 vs. 4 and 3 vs. 4, respectively) showed significant improvement after PICCS-MAR (all P < 0.001). PICCS-MAR significantly improved the accuracy of mean CT numbers for fat, muscle and the area with the most severe artefact (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

PICCS-MAR substantially reduces streak artefacts related to THA on DICOM images, thereby enhancing visualization of anatomy on 2D and 3D CTC images and increasing diagnostic confidence.

KEY POINTS

• PICCS-MAR significantly reduces streak artefacts associated with total hip arthroplasty on 2D and 3D CTC. • PICCS-MAR significantly improves 2D and 3D CTC image quality and diagnostic confidence. • PICCS-MAR can be applied retrospectively to DICOM images from single-kVp CT.

Iohexol versus diatrizoate for fecal/fluid tagging during CT colonography performed with cathartic preparation: comparison of examination quality

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare iohexol vs. diatrizoate as fecal/fluid tagging agents for computed tomography colonography (CTC) regarding examination quality.

METHODS

Forty prospective patients (M:F = 23:17; 63 ± 11.6 years) received CTC using 50 mL (350 mgI/mL) oral iohexol for tagging. Forty other indication-matched, age-matched, and sex-matched patients who underwent CTC using 100 mL diatrizoate for tagging and otherwise the same technique, were retrospectively identified. Two groups were compared regarding overall examination quality, per-patient and per-segment scores of colonic bubbles (0 [no bubbles] to 5 [the largest amount]), and the volume, attenuation, and homogeneity (untagged, layered, and homogeneous) of the residual colonic fluid.

RESULTS

The iohexol group demonstrated a greater amount of colonic bubbles than the diatrizoate group: mean per-patient scores ± SD of 1.2 ± 0.8 vs. 0.7 ± 0.6, respectively (p = 0.003); and rates of segments showing ≥ grade 3 bubbles of 12.9 % (85/659) vs. 1.6 % (11/695), respectively (p = 0.001). Residual colonic fluid amount standardized to the colonic volume did not significantly differ: 7.2 % ± 4.2 vs. 7.8 % ± 3.7, respectively (p = 0.544). Tagged fluid attenuation was mostly comparable between groups and the fluid was homogeneously tagged in 98.7 % (224/227) vs. 99.5 % (218/219) segments, respectively (p = 0.344). Iohexol caused more colonic bubbles when used during cathartic CTC. Otherwise, examination quality was similarly adequate with both iohexol and diatrizoate.

KEY POINTS

• When used for tagging, iohexol caused significantly more colonic bubbles than diatrizoate. • The residual colonic fluid amount did not significantly differ between iohexol and diatrizoate. • The quality of fluid tagging was similarly adequate in both iohexol and diatrizoate.

Intra-individual comparison of magnesium citrate and sodium phosphate for bowel preparation at CT colonography: automated volumetric analysis of residual fluid for quality assessment

AIM

To perform an objective, intra-individual comparison of residual colonic fluid volume and attenuation associated with the current front-line laxative magnesium citrate (MgC) versus the former front-line laxative sodium phosphate (NaP) at CT colonography (CTC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study had institutional review board approval; informed consent was waived. The study cohort included 250 asymptomatic adults (mean age at index 56.1 years; 124 male/126 female) who underwent CTC screening twice over a 5 year interval. Colon catharsis at initial and follow-up screening employed single-dose NaP and double-dose MgC, respectively, allowing for intra-patient comparison. Automated volumetric analysis of residual colonic fluid volume and attenuation was performed on all 500 CTC studies. Colonic fluid volume <200 ml and mean attenuation between 300-900 HU were considered optimal. Paired t-test and McNemar's test were used to compare differences.

RESULTS

Residual fluid volumes <200 ml were recorded in 192 examinations (76.8%) following MgC and in 204 examinations (81.6%) following NaP (p = 0.23). The mean total residual fluid volume was 155 ± 114 ml for MgC and 143 ± 100 ml for NaP (p = 0.01). The attenuation range of 300-900 HU was significantly more frequent for MgC (n = 220, 88%) than for NaP (n = 127, 50.8%; p < 0.001). Mean fluid attenuation was significantly lower for MgC (700 ± 165 HU) than for NaP (878 ± 155 HU; p < 0.001). Concomitant presence of both optimal fluid volume and attenuation was significantly more frequent for MgC 65.2% than for NaP (38%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Objective intra-individual comparison using automated volumetric analysis suggests that the replacement of NaP by MgC as the front-line laxative for CTC has not compromised overall examination quality.