Renal CT after intravenous injection of nonionic dimeric or nonionic monomeric contrast media in healthy volunteers

Hepatic contrast medium enhancement at computed tomography and its correlation with various body size measures

BACKGROUND

When the same dose of iodine is given to all patients when performing abdominal computed tomography (CT) there may be a wide inter-individual variation in contrast medium (CM) enhancement of the liver.

PURPOSE

To evaluate if any of the measures body height (BH), body mass index (BMI), lean body mass (LBM), ideal body weight (IBW), and body surface area (BSA) correlated better than body weight (BW) with hepatic enhancement, and to compare the enhancement when using iodixanol and iomeprol.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred patients referred for standard three-phase CT examination of abdomen were enrolled. Body weight and height were measured at the time of the CT examination. Forty grams of iodine (iodixanol 320 mg I/mL or iomeprol 400 mg I/mL) was injected at a rate of 1.6 g-I/s, followed by a 50 mL saline flush. The late arterial phase was determined by using a semi-automatic smart prep technique with a scan delay of 20 s. The hepatic parenchymal phase started automatically 25 s after the late arterial phase. CM concentration was estimated by placement of regions of interest in aorta (native and late arterial phase) and in liver (native and parenchymal phase).

RESULTS

BW (r = -0.51 and -0.64), LBM (r = -0.54 and -0.59), and BSA (r = -0.54 and -0.65) showed the best correlation coefficients with aortic and hepatic parenchymal enhancement, respectively, without any significant differences between the measures. Comparing iodixanol and iomeprol there was no significant difference in aortic enhancement. The liver enhancement was significantly higher (P < 0.05) using iodixanol than iomeprol.

CONCLUSION

To achieve a consistent hepatic enhancement, CM dose may simply be adjusted to body weight instead of using more complicated calculated parameters based on both weight and height.

Comparison of Excretory Urographic Contrast Effects of Dimeric and Monomeric Non-Ionic Iodinated Contrast Media in Dogs

In excretory urography, the osmolarity of contrast media has rarely been treated as important in veterinary medicine. In this study, the contrast effect of two contrast media (monomeric iohexol and dimeric iodixanol) in the renal cortex and aorta were compared using computed tomography (CT). Five beagle dogs were used and the study employed a cross-over method for each contrast media. The results showed that there was no difference between the media in the aorta, but iodixanol showed higher CT value and a longer contrast effect than iohexol in the renal cortex, in spite of having the same iodine dosage. It is believed that iodixanol, with its low osmolarity, is diluted less by osmotic diuresis than monomeric iohexol. It is important to consider the osmolarity of the contrast media when evaluating the contrast effect, and it is essential to use the same contrast media for each examination, or the renal excretory speed will be under/overestimated.

Optimal contrast agents for vascular imaging on computed tomography: iodixanol versus iohexol

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Dimeric nonionic iodinated contrast has a lower osmolality than monomeric nonionic iodinated contrast but is available at lower iodine concentrations. Less dilution of intravascular fluid by influx from the extravascular space is proposed to occur with decreasing osmolality. The purpose of this study was to determine if a dimeric nonionic iso-osmolar contrast agent (iodixanol) gives equal vascular enhancement compared with a monomeric nonionic hyperosmolar contrast agent (iohexol).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A dynamic single-level computed tomography (CT) scan was performed of the abdominal aorta of 12 sedated rabbits using a four-row multidetector CT scanner following injection of 1.5 mL contrast/kg body weight at 2 mL/sec. The rabbits were injected with the dimeric contrast agent iodixanol (Visipaque 320; Amersham Health) or the monomeric contrast agent iohexol (Omnipaque 350; Amersham Health). The order of the type of contrast media injected was randomized for each rabbit, and the interval between injections was 2 weeks. Using the 2.5-mm detectors, four contiguous 3-mm contrast-enhanced scans were obtained at a single level every 5 seconds for 120 seconds (total of 24 scans) with a kVp of 120, mA.s of 110, field of view of 106 mm, and soft tissue reconstruction algorithm. A single level was chosen to measure the attenuation of the abdominal aorta at 5-second intervals. The mean attenuation and standard deviation values were recorded for the whole aorta, for the central half of the vessel, and for the peripheral half of the vessel. A log-log transformation of the data was performed and regression analysis was done on the outcomes of interest (e.g., mean, standard deviation) on time for each region.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in mean attenuation for the whole aorta for iodixanol and iohexol (P = .918) even though the iodine content was 9.3% less with the dimeric iodixanol. The time-attenuation curve of iodixanol paralleled that of iohexol for all time points. The mean attenuation values of the central half of the aorta (P = .354) and peripheral half of the aorta (P = .758) were also not statistically different for the two contrast agents.

CONCLUSION

The vascular attenuation provided by a 9.3% lower iodine concentration of iso-osmolar iodixanol is equal to that given by hyperosmolar iohexol. This suggests that there is less intravascular dilution of iso-osmolar contrast. The enhancement across the cross section of the vessel is also similar for both contrast agents. This suggests the vascular studies with iodixanol and iohexol are of equal quality even when a lower dose of iodine is given with iodixanol. It is relevant for patients with borderline or diminished renal function in whom less volume of contrast may be administered.

Spiral CT angiography of the abdominal aorta. Comparison of iodixanol and ioversol

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Enhancement characteristics of a nonionic, dimeric, isotonic contrast medium (iodixanol [Visipaque]) were compared with a nonionic, monomeric contrast medium (ioversol [Optiray]) of the same iodine concentration in spiral computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the abdominal aorta.

METHODS

Spiral CTA was performed in 78 patients referred for suspected renal artery stenosis (n = 35) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (n = 43). A test bolus was used to time the scan delay, and all patients were injected with 150 ml contrast medium (320 mgI/ml) of either iodixanol (n = 40) or ioversol (n = 38). Contrast enhancement was measured in the aorta, renal arteries, and renal parenchyma.

RESULTS

All mean aortic enhancement was slightly higher with iodixanol than ioversol, measured at three different levels (celiac trunk 315 Hounsfield units [HU] versus 300 HU, renal arteries 325 HU versus 312 HU, aortic bifurcation 276 HU versus 266 HU). However, none of them were statistically significant (e.g., P = 0.26 at the celiac trunk level). Similar results were observed in renal artery and parenchyma enhancements.

CONCLUSIONS

Iodixanol and ioversol had similar enhancement characteristics in the early arterial phase. Both substances were well tolerated and seem to be well suited for spiral CTA.

A comparison of a non-ionic dimer, iodixanol with a non-ionic monomer, iohexol in low dose intravenous urography

A prospective, double-blind study of 392 patients randomized into four groups was performed to establish whether diagnostic intravenous urograms could be obtained with a lower dose of iodine when using the dimeric, non-ionic contrast medium iodixanol compared with the monomeric, non-ionic iohexol. Patients received iodixanol or iohexol containing either 9 or 12 g of iodine (gI). The primary parameter was the diagnostic quality of the 6 min film, assessed in a blinded fashion, by consensus, by four radiologists. Iodixanol at both doses was diagnostic in over 90% of cases. Iohexol was only diagnostic in 74% (9 gI) and 81.8% (12 gI). Pairwise comparisons revealed that iodixanol 9 gI was significantly better than both iohexol 9 gI (p = 0.0005) and 12 gI (p = 0.014). No significant difference was present for different doses within the same contrast medium group. Iodixanol resulted in poorer bladder distension than iohexol. Iodixanol caused significantly less discomfort than iohexol.