Comparison of two small bowel distending agents for enterography in pediatric small bowel imaging

Comparison of the Efficacy of Diluted Polyethylene Glycol and Low-Density (0.1% w/v) Barium Sulfate Suspension for CT Enterography

PURPOSE

To compare small bowel distension and side effects between a diluted polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution and a low-density (0.1% w/v) barium sulfate suspension (LDBSS) for CT enterography (CTE) preparation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Total 173 consecutive patients who underwent CTE were enrolled in this study. The LDBSS (1 L) was used in 50 patients, and the diluted iso-osmotic PEG solution (1 L) was used in 123 patients. Two blinded radiologists independently scored jejunal and ileal distensions on a 5-point scale. To compare side effects between the two groups, the patients reported whether they had immediate complications after the administration of the oral contrast media.

RESULTS

For ileal and jejunal distension, the diluted PEG solution showed no difference from the LDBSS for either reader (ileum: reader 1, median, 4; 4, interquartile range, 3-4; 3-4, p = 0.997; reader 2, median, 4; 4, interquartile range, 3.3-4.0; 3-4, p = 0.064; jejunum: reader 1, median, 2; 2, interquartile range, 2-3; 2-3, p = 0.560; reader 2, median, 3; 2, interquartile range, 2-3; 2-3, p = 0.192). None of the patients complained of immediate complications following administration of either of the oral contrast media.

CONCLUSION

The diluted PEG solution showed comparable bowel distension compared to LDBSS and no immediate side effects; thus, it can be a useful alternative.

Computed tomography and magnetic resonance enterography protocols and techniques: survey of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Crohn's Disease Disease-Focused Panel

PURPOSE

To survey Society of Abdominal Radiology Crohn's Disease (CD) Disease-Focused Panel (DFP) members to understand state-of-the-art CT/MR enterography (CTE/MRE) protocols and variability between institutions.

METHODS

This study was determined by an institutional review board to be "exempt" research. The survey consisted of 70 questions about CTE/MRE patient preparation, administration of contrast materials, imaging techniques, and other protocol details. The survey was administered to DFP members using SurveyMonkey® (Surveymonkey.com). Descriptive statistical analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 16 DFP institutions (3 non-USA, 2 pediatric); 15 (94%) were academic/university-based. 10 (63%) Institutions image most CD patients with MRE; 4 (25%) use CTE and MRE equally. Hypoperistaltic medication is given for MRE at 13 (81%) institutions versus only 2 (13%) institutions for CTE. Most institutions have a technologist or nurse monitor oral contrast material drinking (n = 12 for CTE, 75%; n = 11 for MRE, 69%). 2 (13%) institutions use only dual-energy capable scanners for CTE, while 9 (56%) use either a single-energy or dual-energy scanner based on availability. Axial CTE images are reconstructed at 2-3 mm thickness at 8 (50%) institutions, > 3 mm at 5 (31%), and < 2 mm at 3 (19%) institutions. 13 (81%) institutions perform MRE on either 1.5 or 3T scanners without preference. All institutions perform MRE multiphase postcontrast imaging (median = 4 phases), ranging from 20 to 600 s after contrast material injection.

CONCLUSION

CTE and MRE protocol knowledge from DFP institutions can help radiology practices optimize/standardize protocols, potentially improving image quality and patient outcomes, permitting objective comparisons between examinations, and facilitating research.