AJR Get Involved! Join ARRS Today
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Birnbaum, B. A.
Right arrow Articles by Yin, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Birnbaum, B. A.
Right arrow Articles by Yin, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 165, 853-858, Copyright © 1995 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Hepatic enhancement during helical CT: a comparison of moderate rate uniphasic and biphasic contrast injection protocols

BA Birnbaum, JE Jacobs and D Yin
Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104, USA.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the degree and timing of peak hepatic enhancement, optimal scanning intervals, and optimal delay times of moderate-rate uniphasic and biphasic contrast material injection protocols for hepatic helical CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS. One hundred fifty patients were randomized into three injection protocols, receiving 42.3 g iodine (150 ml iothalamate meglumine) delivered using 3 ml/sec uniphasic, 2 ml/sec uniphasic, or biphasic (3 ml/sec [50 ml], 1 ml/sec [100 ml]) technique. Statistically fitted aortic and hepatic enhancement curves were generated from dynamic incremental CT data for each patient. Protocols were compared by maximum hepatic enhancement, and contrast enhancement indices were modeled for a 38-sec helical acquisition. RESULTS. The 3 ml/sec and 2 ml/sec uniphasic protocols produced higher peak hepatic enhancement (64 +/- 15 H and 62 +/- 15 H [mean +/- 1 SD]) than the 3 ml/sec biphasic protocol (52 +/- 10 H; p < .001). Contrast enhancement indices for the 3 ml/sec uniphasic and 2 ml/sec uniphasic protocols (385 +/- 398 H/sec and 397 +/- 412 H/sec) were significantly greater than the index for the 3 ml/sec biphasic protocol (123 +/- 194 H/sec; p < .0001) at a 50-H threshold. Optimal scan delay times were 50 +/- 8, 75 +/- 7, and 119 +/- 8 sec, respectively, for the 3 ml/sec uniphasic, 2 ml/sec uniphasic, and 3 ml/sec biphasic techniques. CONCLUSION. The moderate-rate uniphasic injections studied provided greater hepatic enhancement throughout the helical acquisition without requiring the prohibitively long delay time necessitated by the moderate-rate biphasic injection. These findings differ from prior results that showed that a uniphasic injection may provide comparable levels of hepatic enhancement when compared with a high-flow-rate biphasic injection.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
G. T. Sica, H. Ji, and P. R. Ros
CT and MR Imaging of Hepatic Metastases
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2000; 174(3): 691 - 698.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.