AJR Track the topics, authors and articles important to you
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Behrendt, F. F.
Right arrow Articles by Mühlenbruch, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Behrendt, F. F.
Right arrow Articles by Mühlenbruch, G.
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?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.07.3176
AJR 2008; 191:145-150
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

Intraindividual Comparison of Contrast Media Concentrations for Combined Abdominal and Thoracic MDCT

Florian F. Behrendt1, Andreas H. Mahnken1, Sven Stanzel2, Peter Seidensticker3, Edgar Jost4, Rolf W. Günther1 and Georg Mühlenbruch1

1 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52057 Aachen, Germany.
2 Institute of Medical Statistics, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
3 Bayer Schering Pharma, Berlin, Germany.
4 Medical Clinic IV, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was an intraindividual comparison of the degrees of MDCT contrast enhancement achieved with agents containing 300 and 370 mg I/mL.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Seventy-five patients underwent baseline and follow-up MDCT of the chest and abdomen with contrast media containing a high concentration of iodine (iopromide 370 mg I/mL) and standard iodine concentration (iopromide 300 mg I/mL). The total iodine load (37 g) and the iodine delivery rate (1.29 g/s) were identical for the two protocols. Contrast enhancement in the chest (right and left ventricles, pulmonary trunk, descending aorta) and the abdomen (aorta, inferior vena cava, portal vein, and liver) was determined. Results were compared by use of paired Student's t tests, and p was adjusted with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (p ≤ 0.0056).

RESULTS. Contrast enhancement was significantly higher for the 300 mg I/mL protocol than for the 370 mg I/mL protocol at all anatomic sites in the chest except the left ventricle (right ventricle, 359 ± 100 H vs 320 ± 102 H, p = 0.003; pulmonary trunk, 334 ± 96 H vs 303 ± 89 H, p = 0.003; left ventricle, 310 ± 54 H vs 300 ± 51 H, p = 0.036; descending aorta, 300 ± 63 H vs 277 ± 57 H, p = 0.0002). No statistically significant differences were found in the abdomen (all p > 0.0056).

CONCLUSION. Given equivalent iodine load and delivery rate, the use of 300 mg I/mL contrast medium results in better contrast enhancement than use of 370 mg I/mL contrast medium in CT of the chest. For the portal venous phase of CT of the abdomen, there was no significant difference in contrast enhancement for the two concentrations of iodine.

Keywords: contrast administration • contrast dosage • contrast media • reproducibility • x-ray CT


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?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.