Impact of CT Injector Technology and Contrast Media Viscosity on Vascular Enhancement: Evaluation in a Circulation Phantom

Computed tomography image quality in patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma: intraindividual comparison of contrast agent concentrations

Objective

This study aimed to assess the impact of the different concentrations of iodine contrast agents used on the quality of computed tomography (CT) images obtained intraindividually in hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

Methods

In this retrospective study, data from a cohort of 29 patients diagnosed with primary hepatocellular carcinoma who had undergone two preoperative CT-enhanced examinations within a 3-month timeframe were analyzed. Each patient was randomly assigned to receive either a low-concentration contrast agent (300 mg I/mL iohexol) or a high-concentration contrast agent (350 mg I/mL iohexol) for the first scan and the alternative contrast agent for the second scan. CT images of different liver regions of each patient were compared between low-and high-concentration scans using their before-and-after control design. Subjective image quality scores for portal vein images were also assessed.

Results

The findings of this study indicate that patients in the high-concentration group presented significantly elevated CT values across various anatomical regions, including the liver parenchyma, abdominal aorta, and hepatic portal vein, compared to those in the low-concentration group (p < 0.05). Moreover, the high-concentration group demonstrated superior subjective image ratings (p < 0.05). Nevertheless, there was no statistically significant difference in the CT values observed in liver cancer parenchyma scans at different phases between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

In summary, using a high-concentration iodine contrast agent is efficient in enhancing the visual clarity of the liver parenchyma, the aorta, and the portal vein in individuals diagnosed with primary hepatocellular carcinoma.

Critical but commonly neglected factors that affect contrast medium administration in CT

OBJECTIVE

Past decades of research into contrast media injections and optimization thereof in radiology clinics have focused on scan acquisition parameters, patient-related factors, and contrast injection protocol variables. In this review, evidence is provided that a fourth bucket of crucial variables has been missed which account for previously unexplained phenomena and higher-than-expected variability in data. We propose how these critical factors should be considered and implemented in the contrast-medium administration protocols to optimize contrast enhancement.

METHODS

This article leverages a combination of methodologies for uncovering and quantifying confounding variables associated with or affecting the contrast-medium injection. Engineering benchtop equipment such as Coriolis flow meters, pressure transducers, and volumetric measurement devices are combined with small, targeted systematic evaluations querying operators, equipment, and the physics and fluid dynamics that make a seemingly simple task of injecting fluid into a patient a complex and non-linear endeavor.

RESULTS

Evidence is presented around seven key factors affecting the contrast-medium injection including a new way of selecting optimal IV catheters, degraded performance from longer tubing sets, variability associated with the mechanical injection system technology, common operator errors, fluids exchanging places stealthily based on gravity and density, wasted contrast media and inefficient saline flushes, as well as variability in the injected flow rate vs. theoretical expectations.

CONCLUSION

There remain several critical, but not commonly known, sources of error associated with contrast-medium injections. Elimination of these hidden sources of error where possible can bring immediate benefits and help to drive standardized and optimized contrast-media injections.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This review brings to light the commonly neglected/unknown factors negatively impacting contrast-medium injections and provides recommendations that can result in patient benefits, quality improvements, sustainability increases, and financial benefits by enabling otherwise unachievable optimization.

KEY POINTS

How IV contrast media is administered is a rarely considered source of CT imaging variability. IV catheter selection, tubing length, injection systems, and insufficient flushing can result in unintended variability. These findings can be immediately addressed to improve standardization in contrast-enhanced CT imaging.

Third-Generation Cardiovascular Phantom: The Next Generation of Preclinical Research in Diagnostic Imaging

OBJECTIVE

Different types of preclinical research tools used in the field of diagnostic imaging such as dynamic flow circulation phantoms have built the foundation for optimization and advancement of clinical procedures including new imaging techniques. The objective was to introduce a third-generation phantom, building on the limitations of earlier versions and unlocking new opportunities for preclinical investigation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A third-generation phantom was designed and constructed comprising physiological vascular models from head to toe, including a 4-chamber heart with embedded heart valves and a controllable electromechanical pump. The models include modular segments, allowing for interchangeability between healthy and diseased vessels. Clinical sanity checks were performed using the phantom in combination with a dual-head power injector on a third-generation dual-source computed tomography scanner. Contrast media was injected at 1.5 g I/s, and the phantom was configured with a cardiac output of 5.3 L/min. Measurements of mean transit times between key vascular landmarks and peak enhancement values in Hounsfield units (HUs) were measured to compare with expected in vivo results estimated from literature.

RESULTS

Good agreement was obtained between literature reference values from physiology and measured results. Contrast arrival between antecubital vein and right ventricle was measured to be 13.1 ± 0.3 seconds. Transit time from right ventricle to left ventricle was 12.0 ± 0.2 seconds, from left internal carotid artery to left internal jugular vein 7.7 ± 0.4 seconds, and 2.9 ± 0.2 seconds from aortic arch to aortic bifurcation. The peak enhancement measured in the regions of interest was between 336 HU and 557 HU.

CONCLUSIONS

The third-generation phantom demonstrated the capability of simulating physiologic in vivo conditions with accurate contrast media transport timing, good repeatability, and expected enhancement profiles. As a nearly complete cardiovascular system including a functioning 4-chamber heart and interchangeable disease states, the third-generation phantom presents new opportunities for the expansion of preclinical research in diagnostic imaging.

Performance of Centargo: A Novel Piston-Based Injection System for High Throughput in CE CT

Purpose

To compare an investigational device (MEDRAD^® Centargo CT Injection System, “Centargo”) to the currently available MEDRAD^® Stellant CT Injection System (“Stellant”), in terms of efficiency, injector performance, and user satisfaction.

Patients and Methods

A total of 425 patients at two sites were enrolled; 198 patients in phase one, a randomized study (98 Stellant and 100 Centargo). The second observational phase included 227 patients who were injected with Centargo. Phase one recorded times for setup, disassembly, and patient changeovers. Demographic data, subjective image quality, and injection parameters were collected. Phase two assessed usability via a questionnaire provided to all end-users of both systems (radiographers).

Results

Patient changeover times were statistically significantly faster with Centargo (15.4s ± 8.7s vs 53.7s ± 19.6s, p < 0.001). Centargo day-setup times were similar to Stellant (138.1s ± 92s vs 151.8s ± 30.6s, p = 0.33) and end-of-day-disassembly times were significantly slower (60.6s ± 27s vs 17.1s ± 12.9s, p < 0.001). Based on four different scenarios modelling patient throughput, the projected time savings with Centargo over Stellant was 40–63%, with the highest efficiency improvements for higher throughputs and the use of larger contrast medium bottles. Both Centargo and Stellant usability averaged between “Very Easy” and “Easy” in all responses to the questionnaire. There were no instances of interrupted injections due to communication loss or detected air and no insufficient images due to injector performance. No safety issues were identified.

Conclusion

Centargo was able to demonstrate improved efficiency as compared to Stellant while maintaining injector performance and high usability scores.

Cardiothoracic CTA in Infants Referred for Aortic Arch Evaluation-Retrospective Comparison of Iomeprol 350, Ioversol 350, Iopromide 370 and Iodixanol 320

Background: Computed tomography angiography (CTA) in infants is considered one of the most challenging radiological examinations due to difficulties in balancing start delay, contrast agent (CA) volume and flow in order to achieve optimal opacification of the large vessels. This study aimed to compare the contrast enhancement achieved by four CAs when taking into consideration CA injection parameters and patient characteristics. Methods: We performed a retrospective assessment of forty-eight consecutive cardiothoracic CTAs performed for aortic arch evaluation on children aged 0–1 year. All examinations were performed using the same 64-slice scanner and power injector using the bolus tracking technique. Axial 0.6 mm slices were used to measure large vessel enhancement using regions of interest at the level of the main pulmonary artery, ascending and descending aorta. The recorded variables included anthropometric measurements, CA type, flow rate, volume, and the average Hounsfield unit (HU) values of the blood pool. Descriptive statistics are presented as averages and standard deviations (SD) for normal distributed data or otherwise as medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). Results: We found no statistically significant differences between age and anthropometric parameters when looking at different CAs. The median CA volume was 7 (IQR, 7–9) mL with the average flow rate of 0.94 (SD, 0.23) mL/s. Ascending aorta average HU values were 605.9 (SD, 177.23) for Iomeprol 350, 626 (SD, 183.83) for Ioversol 350, 530.83 (SD, 175.56) for Iopromide 370 and 354.91 (SD, 115.81) for Iodixanol 320. The difference in HU value for Iodixanol 320 compared to the other CAs was statistically significant. Similar differences were found for the other vascular structures. Conclusion: In CTA of infants suspected of aortic arch hypoplasia/coarctation, Iodixanol 320 provided up to 40% less enhancement of the great vessels when compared to Iomeprol 350, Ioversol 350 and Iopromide 370.

Proactive Air Management in CT Power Injections: A Comprehensive Approach to Reducing Air Embolization

OBJECTIVE

Venous air embolism as a complication of contrast media administration from power injection systems in CT is found to occur in 7%-55% of patients, impacting patient safety, diagnostic image quality, workflow efficiency, and patient and radiographer satisfaction. This study reviews the challenges associated with reactive air management approaches employed on contemporary systems, proposes a novel air management approach using proactive methods, and compares the impact of reactive and proactive approaches on injected air volumes under simulated clinical use.

METHODS

Injected air volumes from three power injection systems were measured under simulated clinical use via custom air trap fixture. Two of the systems employed reactive air management approaches, while a new system implemented the proposed proactive air management approach.

RESULTS

The proactive system injected significantly less air (average of 0.005 mL ± 0.006 mL with a maximum of 0.017 mL) when compared to two systems with reactive approaches (averages of 0.130 mL ± 0.082 mL and 0.106 mL ± 0.094 mL with maximums of 0.259 mL and 0.311 mL, respectively) (p < 0.05). CT images were taken of static and dynamic 0.1 mL air bubbles inside of a vascular phantom, both of which were clearly visible. Additionally, the dynamic bubble was shown to introduce image artifacts similar to those observed clinically.

CONCLUSION

Comparison of the injected air volumes show that a system with a proactive air management approach injected significantly less air compared to tested systems employing reactive approaches.

SIGNIFICANCE

The results indicate that the use of a proactive approach could significantly reduce the prevalence of observable, and potentially artifact-inducing, venous air embolism in contrast-enhanced CT procedures.