Although contrast injection is optimized for visualization of the coronary arteries, retrospectively ECG-gated 64-MDCT permits reliable assessment of global RV function.
Software quantification of longest axial diameter and volume of hepatic lesions in a phantom demonstrated a high correlation and accuracy under varying multidetector row computed tomography parameter.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different peripheral vein catheter sizes on the injection pressure, flow rate, injection duration, and intravascular contrast enhancement. A flow phantom with a low-pressure venous compartment and a high-pressure arterial compartment simulating physiological circulation parameters was used. High-iodine-concentration contrast medium (370 mg iodine/ml; Ultravist 370) was administered in the venous compartment through peripheral vein catheters of different sizes (14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 G) using a double-head power injector with a pressure limit of 325 psi. The flow rate was set to 5 ml/s, with a total iodine load of 36 g for all protocols. Serial CT scans at the level of the pulmonary artery and the ascending and the descending aorta replica were obtained. The true injection flow rate, injection pressure, injection duration, true contrast material volume, and pressure in the phantom during and after injection were continuously monitored. Time enhancement curves were computed and both pulmonary and aortic peak time and peak enhancement were determined. Using peripheral vein catheters with sizes of 14-20 G, flow rates of approximately 5 ml/s were obtained. During injection through a 22-G catheter the pressure limit was reached and the flow rate was decreased, with a consecutive decreased pulmonary and aortic contrast enhancement compared to the 14- to 20-G catheters. Injection through a 24-G peripheral vein catheter was not possible because of disconnection of the canula due to the high flow rate and pressure. In summary, intravenous catheters with sizes of 14-20 G are suitable for CT angiography using an injection protocol with a high flow rate and a high-iodine-concentration contrast medium.
To compare the impact of iodine concentration using two different contrast materials (CM) at standardized iodine delivery rate (IDR) and overall iodine load in 16-multidetector-row-CT-angiography (MDCTA) of the pulmonary arteries of 192 patients with known or suspected pulmonary embolism. One hundred three patients (group A) received 148 ml of a CM containing 300 mg iodine/ml (Ultravist 300, BayerScheringPharma) at a flow rate of 4.9 ml/s. Eighty-nine patients (group B) received 120 ml of a CM with a concentration of 370 mg iodine/ml (Ultravist 370) at a flow rate of 4.0 ml/s, resulting in a standardized IDR (approximately 1.5 gI/s) and the same overall amount of iodine (44.4 g). Both CM injections were followed by a saline chaser. Mean density values were determined in the pulmonary trunk, the ascending and the descending aorta, respectively. Applying repeated-measures ANOVA, no statistically significant differences between both MDCTA protocols were found (p = 0.5790): the mean density in the pulmonary trunk was 355 +/- 116 Hounsfield Units (group A) and 358 +/- 115 (group B). The corresponding values for the ascending and descending aorta were 295 +/- 79 (group A) and 284 +/- 65 (group B) as well as 272 +/- 71 and 262 +/- 70. In conclusion, the use of standardized IDR and overall iodine load provides comparable intravascular CM density in pulmonary 16-MDCTA for delivering contrast materials with different iodine concentrations.
Given normalised IDR and total iodine burden, the use of CM with a standard concentration with 300 mg iodine/ml provides improved contrast enhancement compared with highly concentrated CM in the chest.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.