Should the dose of contrast medium be determined solely on the basis of body weight regardless of the patient’s sex?

Contrast media injection protocol for portovenous phase abdominal CT: does a fixed injection duration improve hepatic enhancement over a fixed injection rate?

PURPOSE

To assess whether a fixed contrast media (CM) injection duration improves the magnitude and inter-patient variability in hepatic enhancement over a fixed injection rate.

METHODS

Outpatients who underwent portovenous phase abdominal CT (fixed duration, February-November 2018; fixed rate, January-July 2020) with 1.22 mL/kg iohexol 350 were included. Subjects with liver, kidney or heart disease were excluded. The number of subjects and injection protocols were as follows: fixed duration arm, 56 women, 60 men, 35 s injection duration; fixed rate arm, 66 women, 62 men, 3 mL/s injection rate. Liver attenuation measurements were obtained from regions of interest on pre- and post-contrast images. Mean hepatic enhancement (MHE) and MHE normalized to iodine dose (MHE/I) were compared (unpaired t-tests and F-tests).

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in age, weight, body mass index or CM dosing (p > 0.05). Enhancement indices were significantly lower in the fixed rate group as compared to the fixed duration group, as follows: MHE, 50.0 ± 12 vs. 54.8 ± 11 HU (p = 0.001); and MHE/I, 1.53 ± 0.43 vs. 1.66 ± 0.51 HU/g, (p = 0.04). However, there was no significant difference in the variances of MHE (p = 0.51) and MHE/I (p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

A fixed CM injection duration yields a greater magnitude in hepatic enhancement indices than a fixed injection rate. Inter-patient variability in hepatic enhancement indices do not significantly differ between the two injection protocols.

Optimization of contrast medium volume for abdominal CT in oncologic patients: prospective comparison between fixed and lean body weight-adapted dosing protocols

Background

Patient body size represents the main determinant of parenchymal enhancement and by adjusting the contrast media (CM) dose to patient weight may be a more appropriate approach to avoid a patient over dosage of CM. To compare the performance of fixed-dose and lean body weight (LBW)-adapted contrast media dosing protocols, in terms of image quality and parenchymal enhancement.

Results

One-hundred cancer patients undergoing multiphasic abdominal CT were prospectively enrolled in this multicentric study and randomly divided in two groups: patients in fixed-dose group (n = 50) received 120 mL of CM while in LBW group (n = 50) the amount of CM was computed according to the patient’s LBW. LBW protocol group received a significantly lower amount of CM (103.47 ± 17.65 mL vs. 120.00 ± 0.00 mL, p < 0.001). Arterial kidney signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and pancreatic CNR were significantly higher in LBW group (all p ≤ 0.004). LBW group provided significantly higher arterial liver, kidney, and pancreatic contrast enhancement index (CEI) and portal venous phase kidney CEI (all p ≤ 0.002). Significantly lower portal vein SNR and CNR were observed in LBW-Group (all p ≤ 0.020).

Conclusions

LBW-adapted CM administration for abdominal CT reduces the volume of injected CM and improves both image quality and parenchymal enhancement.

Dosing Iodinated Contrast Media According to Lean Versus Total Body Weight at Abdominal CT: A Stratified Randomized Controlled Trial

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

To compare the magnitude and interpatient variability in normalized mean hepatic enhancement (MHE) indices when dosing contrast media (CM) according to total body weight (TBW) and lean body weight (LBW).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This ethics-approved stratified randomized controlled study allocated 280 outpatients for abdominal Computed Tomography (CT) between February-November 2018 to TBW- or LBW-dosing using computer-generated tables. CTs were acquired in portal venous phase after fixed 35-second injection of Iohexol 350. Patients with missing precontrast image, incorrect dose, or chronic kidney, liver or heart disease were excluded. The number of included patients and CM doses were: TBW arm, 51 women and 60 men, 1.22 mL/kg; LBW arm, 59 women, 1.66 mL/kg LBW, and 59 men, 1.52 mL/kg LBW. Liver attenuations were obtained from regions of interest. Values and standard deviations in MHE indices normalized to iodine dose (MHE/I) and iodine dose per kg TBW (aMHE = MHE/[I/TBW]) were compared (unpaired t tests and F-tests).

RESULTS

Cohorts were similar in age, sex, TBW, and LBW. TBW groups received more CM than LBW groups: men, 106.5 ± 20 versus 98.4 ± 11 mL, p = 0.007; women, 93.7 ± 20 versus 77.5 ± 11 mL, p < 0.0001. TBW and LBW groups showed no significant difference in MHE/I (women, 1.75 ± 0.5 versus 1.86 ± 0.6 HU/g, p = 0.31; men, 1.53 ± 0.4 versus 1.52 ± 0.4 HU/g, p = 0.90) or aMHE (women, 0.03 ± 0.01 versus 0.03 ± 0.01 HU/g/kg, p = 0.25; men, 0.02 ± 0.01 versus 0.02 ± 0.01 HU/g/kg, p = 0.52). Variances in MHE/I and aMHE were not significantly different for all groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

TBW- and LBW-based CM dosing yield a similar magnitude and interpatient variability in normalized MHE indices at routine abdominal CT.

Assessment of Cirrhotic Liver Enhancement With Multiphasic Computed Tomography Using a Faster Injection Rate, Late Arterial Phase, and Weight-Based Contrast Dosing

PURPOSE

This study aimed to update our liver computed tomography (CT) protocol according to published guidelines, and to quantitatively evaluate the effect of these modifications.

METHODS

The modified liver CT protocol employed a faster injection rate (5 vs 3 mL/s), later arterial phase (20-second vs 10-second postbolus trigger), and weight-based dosing of iodinated contrast (1.7 mL/kg vs 100 mL fixed dose). Liver and vascular attenuation values were measured on CTs of patients with cirrhosis from January to September 2015 (old protocol, n = 49) and from October to December 2015 (modified protocol, n = 31). CTs were considered adequate if liver enhancement exceeded 50 Hounsfield units (HU) in portal venous phase, or when the unenhanced phase was unavailable, if a minimum iodine concentration of 500 mg I/kg was achieved. Attenuations and iodine concentrations were compared using the t test and the number of suboptimal studies was compared with Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

CTs acquired with the modified protocol demonstrated higher aortic (P = .001) and portal vein (P < .0001) attenuations in the arterial phase as well as greater hepatic attenuation on all postcontrast phases (P = .0006, .002, and .003 for arterial, venous, and equilibrium phases, respectively). Hepatic enhancement in the portal venous phase (61 ± 15 HU vs 51 ± 16 HU; P = .0282) and iodine concentrations (595 ± 88 mg I/kg vs 456 ± 112 mg I/kg; P < .0001) were improved, and the number of suboptimal studies was reduced from 57% to 23% (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

A liver CT protocol with later arterial phase, faster injection rate, and weight-based dosing of intravenous contrast significantly improves liver enhancement and iodine concentrations in patients with cirrhosis, resulting in significantly fewer suboptimal studies.

Aortic and Hepatic Contrast Enhancement During Hepatic-Arterial and Portal Venous Phase Computed Tomography Scanning: Multivariate Linear Regression Analysis Using Age, Sex, Total Body Weight, Height, and Cardiac Output

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effect of the age, sex, total body weight (TBW), height (HT) and cardiac output (CO) of patients on aortic and hepatic contrast enhancement during hepatic-arterial phase (HAP) and portal venous phase (PVP) computed tomography (CT) scanning.

METHODS

This prospective study received institutional review board approval; prior informed consent to participate was obtained from all 168 patients. All were examined using our routine protocol; the contrast material was 600 mg/kg iodine. Cardiac output was measured with a portable electrical velocimeter within 5 minutes of starting the CT scan. We calculated contrast enhancement (per gram of iodine: [INCREMENT]HU/gI) of the abdominal aorta during the HAP and of the liver parenchyma during the PVP. We performed univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis between all patient characteristics and the [INCREMENT]HU/gI of aortic- and liver parenchymal enhancement.

RESULTS

Univariate linear regression analysis demonstrated statistically significant correlations between the [INCREMENT]HU/gI and the age, sex, TBW, HT, and CO (all P < 0.001). However, multivariate linear regression analysis showed that only the TBW and CO were of independent predictive value (P < 0.001). Also, only the CO was independently and negatively related to aortic enhancement during HAP and to liver parenchymal enhancement when the contrast material injection protocol was adjusted for the TBW (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

By multivariate linear regression analysis only the TBW and CO were significantly correlated with aortic and liver parenchymal enhancement; the age, sex, and HT were not. The CO was the only independent factor affecting aortic and liver parenchymal enhancement at hepatic CT when the protocol was adjusted for the TBW.

Cardiac output obtained from test bolus injections as a factor in contrast injection rate revision of following coronary CT angiography

BACKGROUND

Optimal contrast enhancement is crucial for the detection of coronary artery stenoses and atherosclerotic changes in coronary CT angiography (CTA).

PURPOSE

To demonstrate the feasibility of using the cardiac output (CO) obtained from the test bolus injection data-set (COtest) as a factor in contrast injection rate revision of the following coronary CTA.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The test bolus injection data-sets of 52 consecutive coronary CTAs were examined. COtest was calculated from the test bolus data-set. Aortic peak enhancement (APE) was measured on the following coronary CTA. We simulated the APE at a fixed contrast injection rate of 4 mL/s (simAPE) in each patient.

RESULTS

The ranges of COtest and simAPE were 2.82-7.56 L/min and 194-527 Hounsfield Units, respectively. There was a significant negative correlation (R = -0.802, P < 0.001) between simAPE and COtest.

CONCLUSION

COtest can be used for injection rate revision on coronary CTA.