Aortic and hepatic enhancement at multidetector CT: evaluation of optimal iodine dose determined by lean body weight

Lean body weight-based contrast injection protocol in liver CT: optimization of contrast medium dose

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate liver enhancement and image quality of abdominal CECT examinations acquired with multiple LBW-based contrast medium injection protocols.

MATERIAL & METHODS

One hundred fifty patients who underwent a clinically indicated CECT examination were prospectively and randomly assigned to one of the following contrast medium injection protocol groups: A, 700 mg iodine(I)/kg of LBW; B, 650 mgI/kg of LBW; and C, 600 mgI/kg of LBW. Liver signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and magnitude of contrast enhancement (ΔHU) were calculated. Subjective image quality was assessed with 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

The final population included 145 patients (64 females), with 50, 48, and 47 in group A, B, and C, respectively. Group A showed significantly higher SNR, CNR and ΔHU than group B (p = .018, p = .004, and p = .031, respectively) and group C (p = .024, p = .043, and p = .004). Group B had similar SNR, CNR, and ΔHU to group C (all p = 1). ΔHU was < 50 HU in 2, 7, and 11 patients in group A (48.2 ± 0.1), B (43.7 ± 5), and C (44.4 ± 5), respectively. Group A achieved the highest scores in terms of overall image quality, artifacts, and diagnostic confidence (both scores: 4; IQRs: 4-5) compared to group B (both scores: 3; IQRs: 3-5; p ≥ .037) and group C (overall image quality score: 3; IQR: 2-5; p = .011. Artifact and diagnostic confidence score: 3; IQR: 1-4; p ≥ .009).

CONCLUSIONS

A dosage of 700 mgI/kg of LBW yields optimal liver enhancement and grants higher image quality compared to lower contrast medium dosages.

Adjustments of iodinated contrast media using lean body weight for abdominopelvic computed tomography: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review aimed to compare the effect of contrast media (CM) dose adjustment based on lean body weight (LBW) method versus other calculation protocols for abdominopelvic CT examinations.

METHOD

Studies published from 2002 onwards were systematically searched in June 2024 across Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, Google Scholar and four other grey literature sources, with no language limit. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCT of abdominopelvic or abdominal CT examinations in adults with contrast media injection for oncological and acute diseases were included. The comparators were other contrast dose calculation methods such as total body weight (TBW), fixed volume (FV), body surface area (BSA), and blood volume. The main outcomes considered were liver and aortic enhancement. Titles, abstracts and full texts were independently screened by two reviewers.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included from a total of 2029 articles identified. Liver parenchyma and aorta contrast enhancement did not significantly differ between LBW and TBW protocols (p = 0.07, p = 0.06, respectively). However, the meta-analysis revealed significantly lower contrast volume injected with LBW protocol when compared to TBW protocol (p = 0.003). No statistical differences were found for contrast enhancement and contrast volume between LBW and the other strategies.

CONCLUSION

Calculation of the CM dosage based on LBW allows a reduction in the injected volume for abdominopelvic CT examination, ensuring the same image quality in terms of contrast enhancement.

[Investigation of the Correlation between Patient Characteristics and Contrast Enhancement during Hepatic Dynamic CT Scan: Comparison by the Sex]

The purpose of this study was to investigate the correlation between patient characteristics and contrast enhancement during the hepatic arterial phase (HAP) and portal venous phase (PVP) CT scanning. All were examined using a hepatic dynamic CT protocol; the scanning parameters were tube voltage 120 kVp, tube current 50 to 600 mA (noise index 8.0 HU), 0.5-s rotation, 5-mm detector row width, 0.813 or 0.825 beam pitch, and the contrast material 600 mg/kg iodine. We calculated contrast enhancement (per gram of iodine: ΔHU/gI) of the abdominal aorta during the HAP and that of the hepatic parenchyma during the PVP. There was a significant difference in the contrast enhancement of the abdominal aorta during the HAP (8.6±2.7 ΔHU/gI) and (9.5±1.7 ΔHU/gI) and that of the hepatic parenchyma during the PVP (1.4±0.5 ΔHU/gI) and (2.9±0.5 ΔHU/gI) between male and female patients (p<0.05). A significant positive correlation was seen between the ΔHU/gI of aortic enhancement and age in male and female patients (r=-0.382 and 0.213) (p<0.05). A significant inverse correlation was observed between the ΔHU/gI of aortic enhancement and the height (HT; r=-0.466 and -0.251), total body weight (TBW; r=-0.609 and -0.535), body mass index (BMI; r=-0.505 and -0.465), lean body weight (LBW; r=-0.642 and -0.576), and body surface area (BSA; r=-0.644 and -0.557) (p<0.05 for all) in male and female patients. A significant positive correlation was seen between the ΔHU/gI of hepatic parenchymal enhancement and the patient age in male and female patients (r=0.258 and 0.150) (p<0.05). A significant inverse correlation was observed between the ΔHU/gI of hepatic parenchymal enhancement and the HT (r=-0.487 and -0.321), TBW (r=-0.580 and -0.525), BMI (r=-0.473 and -0.413), LBW (r=-0.615 and -0.576) (p<0.05 for all), and BSA (r=-0.617 and -0.558) in male and female patients. The BSA was significantly correlated with the ΔHU/gI of aortic and hepatic parenchymal enhancement of the hepatic dynamic CT in male patients. However, LBW was significantly correlated with the ΔHU/gI of aortic and hepatic parenchymal enhancement of the hepatic dynamic CT in female patients. Since the patient factors that affect the contrast enhancement of the abdominal aorta and hepatic parenchyma may differ from facility to facility, we should therefore consider reassessing at each facility.

Estimating the differences between inter-operator contrast enhancement in cerebral CT angiography

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) angiography (CTA) is a non-invasive imaging method used to detect arteries and examine various brain diseases. When CTA is performed for follow-up or postoperative evaluation, reproducibility of vessel delineation is required. A reproducible and stable contrast enhancement can be achieved by manipulating the factors affecting it. Previous studies have investigated several factors that alter the contrast enhancement of arteries. However, no reports establishing the effect of different operators on contrast enhancement exist.

PURPOSE

To assess the differences between inter-operator arterial contrast enhancement in cerebral CTA using Bayesian statistical modeling.

METHODS

Image data were obtained using a multistage sampling method from the cerebral CTA scans of patients who underwent the process between January 2015 and December 2018. Several Bayesian statistical models were developed, and the objective variable was the mean CT number of the bilateral internal carotid arteries after contrast enhancement. The explanatory variables were sex, age, fractional dose (FD), and the operator's information. The posterior distributions of the parameters were computed via Bayesian inference using the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method, with the Hamiltonian Monte Carlo method employed as the algorithm. The posterior predictive distributions were computed using the posterior distributions of the parameters. Finally, the differences between inter-operator arterial contrast enhancement on the CT number in cerebral CTA were estimated.

RESULTS

The posterior distributions showed that all parameters representing the difference between operators included zero at the 95% credible intervals (CIs). The maximum mean difference between inter-operator CT number in the posterior predictive distribution was only 12.59 Hounsfield units (HUs).

CONCLUSIONS

The Bayesian statistical modeling results suggest that contrast enhancement of cerebral CTA examination between operator-to-operator differences in postcontrast CT number was small compared to those within-operator differences resulting from factors not considered in the model.

Individualized Contrast Media Application Based on Body Weight and Contrast Enhancement in Computed Tomography of Livers without Steatosis

This study analyzes the homogeneity in liver attenuation of a body-weight-based protocol compared to a semi-fixed protocol. Patients undergoing abdominal multiphase computed tomography received 0.500 g of iodine (gI) per kilogram of body weight. Liver attenuation and enhancement were determined using regions of interest on scans in the pre-contrast and portal venous phases. The outcomes were analyzed for interpatient uniformity in weight groups. The subjective image quality was scored using a four-point Likert scale (excellent, good, moderate, and nondiagnostic). A total of 80 patients were included (56.3% male, 64 years, 78.0 kg) and were compared to 80 propensity-score-matched patients (62.5% male, 63 years, 81.7 kg). The liver attenuation values for different weight groups of the TBW-based protocol were not significantly different (p = 0.331): 109.1 ± 13.8 HU (≤70 kg), 104.6 ± 9.70 HU (70−90 kg), and 105.1 ± 11.6 HU (≥90 kg). For the semi-fixed protocol, there was a significant difference between the weight groups (p < 0.001): 121.1 ± 12.1 HU (≤70 kg), 108.9 ± 11.0 HU (70−90 kg), and 105.0 ± 9.8 HU (≥90 kg). For the TBW-based protocol, the enhancement was not significantly different between the weight groups (p = 0.064): 46.2 ± 15.1 HU (≤70 kg), 59.3 ± 6.8 HU (70−90 kg), and 52.1 ± 11.7 HU (≥90 kg). Additionally, for the semi-fixed protocol, the enhancement was not significantly different between the weight groups (p = 0.069): 59.4 ± 11.0 HU (≤70 kg), 53.0 ± 10.3 HU (70−90 kg), and 52.4 ± 7.5 HU (≥90 kg). The mean administered amount of iodine per kilogram was less for the TBW-based protocol compared to the semi-fixed protocol: 0.499 ± 0.012 and 0.528 ± 0.079, respectively (p = 0.002). Of the TBW-based protocol, 17.5% of the scans scored excellent enhancement quality, 76.3% good, and 6.3% moderate. Of the semi-fixed protocol, 70.0% scored excellent quality, 21.3% scored good, and 8.8% scored moderate. In conclusion, the TBW-based protocol increased the interpatient uniformity of liver attenuation but not the enhancement in the portal venous phase compared to the semi-fixed protocol, using an overall lower amount of contrast media and maintaining good subjective image quality.

Lean body weight-adjusted intravenous iodinated contrast dose for abdominal CT in dogs reduces interpatient enhancement variability while providing diagnostic quality organ enhancement

Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) is increasingly used to screen for abdominal pathology in dogs, and the contrast dose used is commonly calculated as a linear function of total body weight (TBW). Body fat is not metabolically active and contributes little to dispersing or diluting contrast medium (CM) in the blood. This prospective, analytic, cross-section design pilot study aimed to establish the feasibility of intravenous CM dosed according to lean body weight (LBW) for abdominal CECT in dogs compared to TBW. We hypothesized that when dosing intravenous CM according to LBW, studies will remain at diagnostic quality, there will be a reduced interindividual contrast enhancement (CE) variability, and there will be less change to heart rate and blood pressure in dogs compared to when administering CM calculated on TBW. Twelve dogs had two CECT studies with contrast doses according to TBW and LBW at least 8 weeks apart. Interindividual organ and vessel CE variability, diagnostic quality of the studies, and changes in physiological status were compared between protocols. The LBW-based protocol provided less variability in the CE of most organs and vessels (except the aorta). When dosed according to LBW, liver enhancement was positively associated with grams of iodine per kg TBW during the portal venous phase (P = 0.046). There was no significant difference in physiological parameters after CM administration between dosing protocols. Our conclusion is that a CM dose based on LBW for abdominal CECT lowers interindividual CE variability and is effective at maintaining studies of diagnostic quality.

Individualized Scan Protocols in Abdominal Computed Tomography: Radiation Versus Contrast Media Dose Optimization

BACKGROUND

In contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography (CT), radiation and contrast media (CM) injection protocols are closely linked to each other, and therefore a combination is the basis for achieving optimal image quality. However, most studies focus on optimizing one or the other parameter separately.

PURPOSE

Reducing radiation dose may be most important for a young patient or a population in need of repetitive scanning, whereas CM reduction might be key in a population with insufficient renal function. The recently introduced technical solution, in the form of an automated tube voltage selection (ATVS) slider, might be helpful in this respect. The aim of the current study was to systematically evaluate feasibility of optimizing either radiation or CM dose in abdominal imaging compared with a combined approach.

METHODS

Six Göttingen minipigs (mean weight, 38.9 ± 4.8 kg) were scanned on a third-generation dual-source CT. Automated tube voltage selection and automated tube current modulation techniques were used, with quality reference values of 120 kVref and 210 mAsref. Automated tube voltage selection was set at 90 kV semimode. Three different abdominal scan and CM protocols were compared intraindividually: (1) the standard "combined" protocol, with the ATVS slider position set at 7 and a body weight-adapted CM injection protocol of 350 mg I/kg body weight, iodine delivery rate (IDR) of 1.1 g I/s; (2) the CM dose-saving protocol, with the ATVS slider set at 3 and CM dose lowered to 294 mg I/kg, resulting in a lower IDR of 0.9 g I/s; (3) the radiation dose-saving protocol, with the ATVS slider position set at 11 and a CM dose of 441 mg I/kg and an IDR 1.3 g I/s, respectively. Scans were performed with each protocol in arterial, portal venous, and delayed phase. Objective image quality was evaluated by measuring the attenuation in Hounsfield units, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio of the liver parenchyma. The overall image quality, contrast quality, noise, and lesion detection capability were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = excellent, 5 = very poor). Protocols were compared for objective image quality parameters using 1-way analysis of variance and for subjective image quality parameters using Friedman test.

RESULTS

The mean radiation doses were 5.2 ± 1.7 mGy for the standard protocol, 7.1 ± 2.0 mGy for the CM dose-saving protocol, and 3.8 ± 0.4 mGy for the radiation dose-saving protocol. The mean total iodine load in these groups was 13.7 ± 1.7, 11.4 ± 1.4, and 17.2 ± 2.1 g, respectively. No significant differences in subjective overall image or contrast quality were found. Signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were not significantly different between protocols in any scan phase. Significantly more noise was seen when using the radiation dose-saving protocol (P < 0.01). In portal venous and delayed phases, the mean attenuation of the liver parenchyma significantly differed between protocols (P < 0.001). Lesion detection was significantly better in portal venous phase using the CM dose-saving protocol compared with the radiation dose-saving protocol (P = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

In this experimental setup, optimizing either radiation (-26%) or CM dose (-16%) is feasible in abdominal CT imaging. Individualizing either radiation or CM dose leads to comparable objective and subjective image quality. Personalized abdominal CT examination protocols can thus be tailored to individual risk assessment and might offer additional degrees of freedom.

Contrast media dose adjustment to allometric parameters of body mass in multiphasic CT of the liver: A comparison of different metrics

PURPOSE

To assess correlations of lean body weight (LBW) calculated with various formulas, total body weight (TBW), body height (BH), body mass index (BMI), body surface area (BSA) and fat-free mass (FFM) with vascular and parenchymal enhancement in multiphasic CT of the liver.

METHOD

Thirty consecutive patients underwent multiphasic CT of the liver using constant iodine dose and flow rate. Contrast enhancement of aorta, portal vein and liver was calculated by measuring mean vascular and parenchymal attenuation in pre-contrast and post-contrast phases. Correlations of TBW, BH, BMI, BSA, FFM, and LBW (calculated with formulas of Boer, Hume, James and Green&Duffull) with enhancement were tested using Spearman's correlation coefficient. The method of Fieller et al. was used to calculate 95 % confidence intervals. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Aortal enhancement correlated strongly with TBW, BSA, LBW_Boer and LBW_Hume and moderately with BH, BMI, FFM, LBW_James and LBW_{Green&Duffull}. Liver enhancement in the late arterial phase correlated moderately with TBW, FFM, LBW_Boer, LBW_Hume and LBW_{Green&Duffull} and weakly with BSA. Liver enhancement in the portal venous phase correlated strongly with TBW, BSA, FFM, LBW_Boer, LBW_Hume and LBW_{Green&Duffull}, whereby overlap of the 95 % CI graphs demonstrated that the differences in the correlation coefficients were not statistically significant. Liver enhancement in the delayed phase correlated moderately with BH but did not correlate significantly with any other parameter.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of the form used for calculation, LBW did not correlate statistically significantly stronger than TBW with vascular or parenchymal enhancement of the liver.

Prospective multicenter study on personalized and optimized MDCT contrast protocols: results on liver enhancement

OBJECTIVE

To determine a personalized and optimized contrast injection protocol for a uniform and optimal diagnostic level of liver parenchymal enhancement, in a large patient population enrolled in a multicenter study.

METHODS

Six hundred ninety-two patients who underwent a standardized multi-phase liver CT examination were prospectively assigned to one contrast media (CM) protocol group: G1 (100 mL fixed volume, 37 gI); G2 (600 mgI/kg of total body weight (TBW)); G3 (750 mgI/kg of fat-free mass (FFM)), and G4 (600 mgI/kg of FFM). Change in liver parenchyma CT number between unenhanced and contrast-enhanced images was measured by two radiologists, on 3-mm pre-contrast and portal phase axial reconstructions. The enhancement histograms were compared across CM protocols, specifically according to a target diagnostic value of 50 HU. The total amount of iodine dose was also compared among protocols by median and interquartile range (IQR). The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess significant differences (p < 0.005), as appropriate.

RESULTS

A significant difference (p < 0.001) was found across the groups with liver enhancement decreasing from median over-enhanced values of 77.0 (G1), 71.3 (G2), and 65.1 (G3) to a target enhancement of 53.2 HU for G4. Enhancement IQR was progressively reduced from 26.5 HU (G1), 26.0 HU (G2), and 17.8 HU (G3) to 14.5 HU (G4). G4 showed a median iodine dose of 26.0 gI, significantly lower (p < 0.001) than G3 (33.9 gI), G2 (38.8 gI), and G1 (37 gI).

CONCLUSIONS

The 600 mgI/kg FFM-based protocol enabled a diagnostically optimized liver enhancement and improved patient-to-patient enhancement uniformity, while significantly reducing iodine load.

KEY POINTS

• Consistent and clinically adequate liver enhancement is observed with personalized and optimized contrast injection protocol. • Fat-free mass is an appropriate body size parameter for correlation with liver parenchymal enhancement. • Diagnostic oncology follow-up liver CT examinations may be obtained using 600 mgI/kg of FFM.

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.

[A New Method for Calculating Iodine Dose in Abdominal Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Computed Tomography: Calculation Based on Patients' Body Size Parameters and Estimated Volume of Distribution of Non-ionic Contrast Medium]

PURPOSE

This study aimed at analyzing the relationship between the estimated volume of distribution on computed tomography (eVd_CT) of non-ionic contrast medium and four different patients' body size parameters (BSPs) (total body weight, body mass index, body surface area, and lean body weight) in abdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (ADCE-CT) . Moreover, this study intended to derive a method for calculating the iodine dose to target contrast enhancement.

METHODS

We measured enhanced CT values of the equilibrium phase of the abdominal aorta in 527 patients who underwent ADCE-CT. The eVd_CT of the ADCE-CT equilibrium phase was calculated from enhanced CT values based on the pharmacokinetic model. The optimal iodine dose (OID) was calculated from the regression analysis of eVd_CT and BSP.

RESULTS

The eVd_CT was 7741.1±1799.5 ml. The eVd_CT showed a strong positive correlation with BSP and could be calculated using a linear regression equation. The correlation coefficients for total body weight, body surface area, and lean body weight were 0.83, 0.84, and 0.81, respectively. The OID per unit BSP required for target iodine concentration of the abdominal aorta on ADCE-CT (TIC) could be calculated as "OID [mgI/BSP]=[(a･BSP+b)×TIC]/BSP".

CONCLUSION

The OID calculation method based on the patients' body size parameters and estimated volume of distribution can normalize contrast enhancement in abdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced CT.

Lean body weight versus total body weight to calculate the iodinated contrast media volume in abdominal CT: a randomised controlled trial

Objectives

Iodinated contrast media (ICM) could be more appropriately dosed on patient lean body weight (LBW) than on total body weight (TBW).

Methods

After Ethics Committee approval, trial registration NCT03384979, patients aged ≥ 18 years scheduled for multiphasic abdominal CT were randomised for ICM dose to LBW group (0.63 gI/kg of LBW) or TBW group (0.44 gI/kg of TBW). Abdominal 64-row CT was performed using 120 kVp, 100–200 mAs, rotation time 0.5 s, pitch 1, Iopamidol (370 mgI/mL), and flow rate 3 mL/s. Levene, Mann–Whitney U, and χ² tests were used. The primary endpoint was liver contrast enhancement (LCE).

Results

Of 335 enrolled patients, 17 were screening failures; 44 dropped out after randomisation; 274 patients were analysed (133 LBW group, 141 TBW group). The median age of LBW group (66 years) was slightly lower than that of TBW group (70 years). Although the median ICM-injected volume was comparable between groups, its variability was larger in the former (interquartile range 27 mL versus 21 mL, p = 0.01). The same was for unenhanced liver density (IQR 10 versus 7 HU) (p = 0.02). Median LCE was 40 (35–46) HU in the LBW group and 40 (35–44) HU in the TBW group, without significant difference for median (p = 0.41) and variability (p = 0.23). Suboptimal LCE (< 40 HU) was found in 64/133 (48%) patients in the LBW group and 69/141 (49%) in the TBW group, but no examination needed repeating.

Conclusions

The calculation of the ICM volume to be administered for abdominal CT based on the LBW does not imply a more consistent LCE.

A Solution for Homogeneous Liver Enhancement in Computed Tomography: Results From the COMpLEx Trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to reach homogeneous enhancement of the liver, irrespective of total body weight (TBW) or tube voltage. An easy-to-use rule of thumb, the 10-to-10 rule, which pairs a 10 kV reduction in tube voltage with a 10% decrease in contrast media (CM) dose, was evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 256 patients scheduled for an abdominal CT in portal venous phase were randomly allocated to 1 of 4 groups. In group 1 (n = 64), a tube voltage of 120 kV and a TBW-adapted CM injection protocol was used: 0.521 g I/kg. In group 2 (n = 63), tube voltage was 90 kV and the TBW-adapted CM dosing factor remained 0.521 g I/kg. In group 3 (n = 63), tube voltage was reduced by 20 kV and CM dosing factor by 20% compared with group 1, in line with the 10-to-10 rule (100 kV; 0.417 g I/kg). In group 4 (n = 66), tube voltage was decreased by 30 kV paired with a 30% decrease in CM dosing factor compared with group 1, in line with the 10-to-10 rule (90 kV; 0.365 g I/kg). Objective image quality was evaluated by measuring attenuation in Hounsfield units (HU), signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio in the liver. Overall subjective image quality was assessed by 2 experienced readers by using a 5-point Likert scale. Two-sided P values below 0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

Mean attenuation values in groups 1, 3, and 4 were comparable (118.2 ± 10.0, 117.6 ± 13.9, 117.3 ± 21.6 HU, respectively), whereas attenuation in group 2 (141.0 ± 18.2 HU) was significantly higher than all other groups (P < 0.01). No significant difference in attenuation was found between weight categories 80 kg or less and greater than 80 kg within the 4 groups (P ≥ 0.371). No significant differences in subjective image quality were found (P = 0.180).

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed 10-to-10 rule is an easily reproducible method resulting in similar enhancement in portal venous CT of the liver throughout the patient population, irrespective of TBW or tube voltage.

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.

Cost-Minimization Analysis of Multidose and Single-Dose Packaging of Contrast Media for Contrast-Enhanced CT: Results From Real-World Data in China

OBJECTIVE. Utilization and waste in diagnostic imaging have substantially increased worldwide. The purpose of this study was to highlight the utilization of contrast material and cost savings resulting from implementation of a multidose bulk IV contrast delivery system. MATERIALS AND METHODS. An observational study was conducted in October-November 2018 in eight hospitals in eight provinces in China. Contrast media specifications were 100-mL single-use IV contrast vials and 200-mL and 500-mL bulk packaging. Linear regression analysis was performed to identify the factors influencing contrast media use. Cost-minimization and sensitivity analyses were performed from patient and payer perspectives. RESULTS. A total of 1032 patients, some of whom underwent more than one CT examination, were enrolled in this study (100-mL package, 776 CT examinations; 200-mL package, 382 CT examinations). The mean injected volume of contrast medium was 75.46 mL. Number of scanned body parts, specification of amount of contrast medium (0, 100 mL; 1, 200 mL), whether the examination was CT angiography (CTA) (0, not CTA; 1, CTA), and patient weight all had a positive impact on the injected volume of contrast medium (p < 0.001 for all variables). Implementation of a multidose bulk IV contrast delivery system combined with different reimbursement units resulted in substantial waste reduction, estimated at US$5.59-6.04 per contrast-enhanced CT examination from the payer perspective, US$12.84-14.66 per examination from the patient perspective, and a total reduction of US$18.29-20.70 per examination. CONCLUSION. Use of multidose packaging of contrast media combined with reimbursement units for patients undergoing IV contrast-enhanced CT was found to be cost saving compared with use of single-dose packaging.

Acute kidney injury from contrast-enhanced CT procedures in patients with cancer: white paper to highlight its clinical relevance and discuss applicable preventive strategies

Patients with cancer are subjected to several imaging examinations which frequently require the administration of contrast medium (CM). However, it has been estimated that acute kidney injury (AKI) due to the injection of iodinated CM accounts for 11% of all cases of AKI, and it is reported in up to 2% of all CT examinations. Remarkably, the risks of developing AKI are increased in the elderly, in patients with chronic kidney disease or diabetes, and with dehydration or administration of nephrotoxic chemotherapeutics. Given the common occurrence of postcontrast acute kidney injury (PC-AKI) in clinical practice, primary care physicians and all specialists involved in managing patients with cancer should be aware of the strategies to reduce the risk of this event. In 2018, a panel of four experts from the specialties of radiology, oncology and nephrology were speakers at the annual meeting of the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (Società Italiana di Radiologia Medica e Interventistica), with the aim of commenting on existing evidence and providing their experience on the incidence and management of PC-AKI in patients with cancer. The discussion represented the basis for this white paper, which is intended to be a practical guide organised by statements describing methods to reduce renal injury risks related to CM-enhanced CT examinations in patients with cancer.

Individually Body Weight-Adapted Contrast Media Application in Computed Tomography Imaging of the Liver at 90 kVp

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the attenuation and image quality (IQ) of a body weight-adapted contrast media (CM) protocol compared with a fixed injection protocol in computed tomography (CT) of the liver at 90 kV.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred ninety-nine consecutive patients referred for abdominal CT imaging in portal venous phase were included. Group 1 (n = 100) received a fixed CM dose with a total iodine load (TIL) of 33 g I at a flow rate of 3.5 mL/s, resulting in an iodine delivery rate (IDR) of 1.05 g I/s. Group 2 (n = 99) received a body weight-adapted CM protocol with a dosing factor of 0.4 g I/kg with a subsequent TIL adapted to the patients' weight. Injection time of 30 seconds was kept identical for all patients. Therefore, flow rate and IDR changed with different body weight. Patients were divided into 3 weight categories; 70 kg or less, 71 to 85 kg, and 86 kg or greater. Attenuation (HU) in 3 segments of the liver, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio were used to evaluate objective IQ. Subjective IQ was assessed by a 5-point Likert scale. Differences between groups were statistically analyzed (P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant).

RESULTS

No significant differences in baseline characteristics were found between groups. The CM volume and TIL differed significantly between groups (P < 0.01), with mean values in group 1 of 110 mL and 33 g I, and in group 2 of 104.1 ± 21.2 mL and 31.2 ± 6.3 g I, respectively. Flow rate and IDR were not significantly different between groups (P > 0.05). Body weight-adapted protocoling led to more homogeneous enhancement of the liver parenchyma compared with a fixed protocol with a mean enhancement per weight category in group 2 of 126.5 ± 15.8, 128.2 ± 15.3, and 122.7 ± 21.2 HU compared with that in group 1 of 139.9 ± 21.4, 124.6 ± 24.8, and 116.2 ± 17.8 HU, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Body weight-adapted CM injection protocols result in more homogeneous enhancement of the liver parenchyma at 90 kV in comparison to a fixed CM volume with comparable objective and subjective IQ, whereas overall CM volume can be safely reduced in more than half of patients.

Determination of contrast medium dose for hepatic CT enhancement with improved body size dependency using a non-linear analysis based on pharmacokinetic principles

AIM

To propose a pharmacokinetic non-linear analysis method to determine contrast medium (CM) dose for computed tomography (CT) hepatic enhancement to improve body size dependency and validate the proposed CM dose determination method through a clinical study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Enhancement data of 105 patients who underwent hepatic dynamic CT with a fixed CM dose were analysed. From the analysis results, CM doses as a function of each of four body size indices (body weight [BW], lean body weight [LBW], blood volume [BV], and body surface area [BSA]) for achieving improved body size dependency were determined (proposed method), and the body size dependencies were simulated using the enhancement data from 105 patients. The proposed method was validated with a two-arm clinical study on BW. Body size dependency was evaluated using p-value of correlation coefficient between Body size indices and enhancements (p<0.05: significant dependency) and mean absolute error (MAE).

RESULTS

The simulation showed that significant body size dependencies not considered by the conventional method can be improved by the proposed method. MAEs of BW, LBW, and BV were also significantly reduced (p<0.05). The clinical study with BW demonstrated a similar improvement to that in the simulation result. MAE was also significantly reduced (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The proposed method demonstrated more improved BW, LBW, and BV dependence compared to the conventional method. Through the two-arm clinical study, the proposed method using BW only, without height information, is a suitable index for improving body size dependency.

Comparison of image quality of abdominopelvic CT in paediatric patients: low osmolar contrast media versus less iodine-containing iso-osmolar contrast media at different peak kilovoltages

AIM

To evaluate the effect of iso-osmolar contrast media (IOCM) at different tube voltages on image quality for abdominal computed tomography (CT) in paediatric patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The low osmolar contrast media (LOCM) group and IOCM group consisted of 101 and 102 CT examinations, respectively, in patients <18 years old. Images were reviewed retrospectively. Objective measurement of the contrast enhancement and noise were analysed and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) of the abdominal aorta, portal vein, and liver were calculated. Four radiologists participated in subjective analysis using a four-point scale system to evaluate degrees of contrast enhancement, image noise, beam-hardening artefact, and overall image quality. Reader performance for correctly differentiating the two kinds of contrast media was evaluated.

RESULTS

Regarding the objective measurement, contrast enhancement was significantly higher in the LOCM group (p<0.05). In subjective analysis, only CT using 120 kVp showed significantly stronger enhancement in the LOCM group (p=0.002), and sensitivity to differentiate the IOCM was 80.6%. Overall sensitivity and specificity for correctly differentiating IOCM were 57.1%, and 56.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The application of IOCM was found to be feasible for performing paediatric abdominopelvic CT with a low tube voltage protocol. Although objective measurements of contrast enhancement were significantly lower in the IOCM group, subjective contrast enhancement and image quality assessments were not statistically different between groups.

Abdominal CT: a radiologist-driven adjustment of the dose of iodinated contrast agent approaches a calculation per lean body weight

Background

The contrast agent (CA) dose for abdominal computed tomography (CT) is typically based on patient total body weight (TBW), ignoring adipose tissue distribution. We report on our experience of dosing according to the lean body weight (LBW).

Methods

After Ethics Committee approval, we retrospectively screened 219 consecutive patients, 18 being excluded for not matching the inclusion criteria. Thus, 201 were analysed (106 males), all undergoing a contrast-enhanced abdominal CT with iopamidol (370 mgI/mL) or iomeprol (400 mgI/mL). LBW was estimated using validated formulas. Liver contrast-enhancement (CE_L) was measured. Data were reported as mean ± standard deviation. Pearson correlation coefficient, ANOVA, and the Levene test were used.

Results

Mean age was 66 ± 13 years, TBW 72 ± 15 kg, LBW 53 ± 11 kg, and LBW/TBW ratio 74 ± 8%; body mass index was 26 ± 5 kg/m², with 9 underweight patients (4%), 82 normal weight (41%), 76 overweight (38%), and 34 obese (17%). The administered CA dose was 0.46 ± 0.06 gI/kg of TBW, corresponding to 0.63 ± 0.09 gI/kg of LBW. A negative correlation was found between TBW and CA dose (r = -0.683, p < 0.001). CE_L (Hounsfield units) was 51 ± 18 in underweight patients, 44 ± 8 in normal weight, 42 ± 9 in overweight, and 40 ± 6 in obese, with a significant difference for both mean (p = 0.004) and variance (p < 0.001). A low but significant positive correlation was found between CE_L and CA dose in gI per TBW (r = 0.371, p < 0.001) or per LBW (r = 0.333, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The injected CA dose was highly variable, with obese patients receiving a lower dose than underweight patients, as a radiologist-driven ‘compensation effect’. Diagnostic abdomen CT examinations may be obtained using 0.63 gI/kg of LBW.

Lean Body Weight-Tailored Iodinated Contrast Injection in Obese Patient: Boer versus James Formula

Purpose

To prospectively compare the performance of James and Boer formula in contrast media (CM) administration, in terms of image quality and parenchymal enhancement in obese patients undergoing CT of the abdomen.

Materials and Methods

Fifty-five patients with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 35 kg/m² were prospectively included in the study. All patients underwent 64-row CT examination and were randomly divided in two groups: 26 patients in Group A and 29 patients in Group B. The amount of injected CM was computed according to the patient's lean body weight (LBW), estimated using either Boer formula (Group A) or James formula (Group B). Patient's characteristics, CM volume, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of liver, aorta and portal vein, and liver contrast enhancement index (CEI) were compared between the two groups. For subjective image analysis readers were asked to rate the enhancement of liver, kidneys, and pancreas based on a 5-point Likert scale.

Results

Liver CNR, aortic CNR, and portal vein CNR showed no significant difference between Group A and Group B (all P ≥ 0.177). Group A provided significantly higher CEI compared to Group B (P = 0.007). Group A and Group B returned comparable overall subjective enhancement values (3.54 and vs 3.20, all P ≥ 0.199).

Conclusions

Boer formula should be the method of choice for LBW estimation in obese patients, leading to an accurate CM amount calculation and an optimal liver contrast enhancement in CT.

Weight-adapted iodinated contrast media administration in abdomino-pelvic CT: Can image quality be maintained?

INTRODUCTION

In many centres, a fixed method of contrast-media administration is used for CT regardless of patient body habitus. The aim of this trial was to assess contrast enhancement of the aorta, portal vein, liver and spleen during abdomino-pelvic CT imaging using a weight-adapted contrast media protocol compared to the current fixed dose method.

METHODS

Thirty-nine oncology patients, who had previously undergone CT abdomino-pelvic imaging at the institution using a fixed contrast media dose, were prospectively imaged using a weight-adapted contrast media dose (1.4 ml/kg). The two sets of images were assessed for contrast enhancement levels (HU) at locations in the liver, aorta, portal vein and spleen during portal-venous enhancement phase. The t-test was used to compare the difference in results using a non-inferiority margin of 10 HU.

RESULTS

When the contrast dose was tailored to patient weight, contrast enhancement levels were shown to be non-inferior to the fixed dose method (liver p < 0.001; portal vein p = 0.003; aorta p = 0.001; spleen p = 0.001). As a group, patients received a total contrast dose reduction of 165 ml using the weight-adapted method compared to the fixed dose method, with a mean cost per patient of £6.81 and £7.19 respectively.

CONCLUSION

Using a weight-adapted method of contrast media administration was shown to be non-inferior to a fixed dose method of contrast media administration. Patients weighing 76 kg, or less, received a lower contrast dose which may have associated cost savings. A weight-adapted contrast media protocol should be implemented for portal-venous phase abdomino-pelvic CT for oncology patients with adequate renal function (>70 ml/min/1.73 m²).

MDCT of the liver in obese patients: evaluation of a different method to optimize iodine dose

PURPOSE

To prospectively compare two different approaches for estimating the amount of intravenous contrast media (CM) needed for multiphasic MDCT of the liver in obese patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center, HIPAA-compliant prospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. Ninety-six patients (55 men, 41 women), with a total of 42 hypovascular liver lesions, underwent MDCT of the liver. The amount of contrast medium injected was computed according to the patient's lean body weight which was estimated using either a bioimpedance device (Group A) or the James formula (Group B). The following variables were compared between the two groups: the amount of contrast medium injected (in grams of Iodine, gI), the contrast enhancement index (CEI) and the lesion-to-liver contrast-to-noise ratio.

RESULTS

Protocols A and B yielded significant differences in the amount of CM injected (mean values 41.9 ± 4.41 gI in Group A vs. 35.9 ± 5.75 gI in Group B; P = 0.021). The mean CEI value and lesion-to-liver contrast-to-noise ratio measured on the portal phase were significantly higher with protocol A than with protocol B (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that the adoption of a bioimpedance device in obese patients improves liver parenchymal enhancement and lesion conspicuity.