Abdominal Multidetector Row Computed Tomography: Reduction of Cost and Contrast Material Dose Using Saline Flush

Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

Volumn 27, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 847-853

  Schoellnast, Helmut ^a   Tillich, Manfred ^a   Deutschmann, Hannes A ^a   Deutschmann, Michael J ^a   Fritz, Gerald A ^a   Stessel, Uwe ^a   Schaffler, Gottfried J ^a   Uggowitzer, Martin M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL GRAZ   (Austria)

Author keywords

Abdomen; Comparative study; Contrast media; Tomography (spiral computed)

Indexed keywords

BLOOD VESSELS; CONTRAST MEDIA; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY;

ABDOMEN; COMPARATIVES STUDIES; CONTRAST MATERIAL; CONTRAST MEDIUM; COSTS REDUCTION; DOSE REDUCTION; MULTIDETECTOR-ROW CT; PORTAL VEINS; SALINE SOLUTIONS; TOMOGRAPHY (SPIRAL COMPUTED);

COST REDUCTION;

CONTRAST MEDIUM; IODINE; NONIONIC CONTRAST MEDIUM; SODIUM CHLORIDE;

ABDOMINAL AORTA; ABDOMINAL MULTIDETECTOR ROW COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BOLUS INJECTION; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST CONTROL; DRUG COST; DRUG DOSE REDUCTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFERIOR CAVA VEIN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIVER PARENCHYMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PANCREAS; PORTAL VEIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION ATTENUATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SPIRAL COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; SPLEEN;

EID: 0242499348     PISSN: 03638715     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00004728-200311000-00002     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Debatin JF, Cohan RH, Leder RA, et al. Selective use of low-osmolar contrast media. Invest Radiol. 1991;26:17-21.
2. Halpern JD, Hopper KD, Arredondo MG, et al. Patient allergies: role in selective use of nonionic contrast material. Radiology. 1996;199:359-362.
3. Hopper KD. With helical CT, is nonionic contrast a better choice than ionic contrast for rapid and large IV bolus injections? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166:715.
4. Sadick M, Lehmann KJ, Diehl SJ, et al. Bolus tracking and NaCl bolus in biphasic spiral CT of the abdomen [in German]. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr. 1997;167:371-376.
5. Brink JA, Heiken JP, Forman HP, et al. Hepatic spiral CT: reduction of dose of intravenous contrast material. Radiology. 1995;197:83-88.
6. Freeny PC, Gardner JC, vonIngersleben G, et al. Hepatic helical CT: effect of reduction of iodine dose of intravenous contrast material on hepatic contrast enhancement. Radiology. 1995;197:89-93.
7. Katayama H, Yamaguchi K, Kozuka T, et al. Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese Committee on the Safety of Contrast Media. Radiology. 1990;175:621-628.
8. McClennan BL, Preston M. Hickey Memorial Lecture. Ionic and nonionic iodinated contrast media: evolution and strategies for use. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;155:225-233.
9. Spring DB, Bettmann MA, Barkan HE. Nonfatal adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media: spontaneous reporting to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 1978-1994. Radiology. 1997;204:325-332.
10. Bluemke DA, Fishman EK, Anderson JH. Dose requirements for a nonionic contrast agent for spiral computed tomography of the liver in rabbits. Invest Radiol. 1994;29:195-200.
11. Chambers TP, Baron RL, Lush RM. Hepatic CT enhancement. Part II. Alterations in contrast material volume and rate of injection within the same patients. Radiology. 1994;193:518-522.
12. Chambers TP, Baron RL, Lush RM. Hepatic CT enhancement. Part I. Alterations in the volume of contrast material within the same patients. Radiology. 1994;193:513-517.
13. Hanninen EL, Vogl TJ, Felfe R, et al. Detection of focal liver lesions at biphasic spiral CT: randomized double-blind study of the effect of iodine concentration in contrast materials. Radiology. 2000;216:403-409.
14. Herts BR, Paushter DM, Einstein DM, et al. Use of contrast material for spiral CT of the abdomen: comparison of hepatic enhancement and vascular attenuation for three different contrast media at two different delay times. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;164:327-331.
15. Kim T, Murakami T, Takahashi S, et al. Pancreatic CT imaging: effects of different injection rates and doses of contrast material. Radiology. 1999;212:219-225.
16. Megibow AJ, Jacob G, Heiken JP, et al. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of volume of low osmolality contrast medium needed for routine helical abdominal CT. AJR Am JRoentgenol. 2001;176:583-589.
17. Small WC, Nelson RC, Bernardino ME, et al. Contrast-enhanced spiral CT of the liver: effect of different amounts and injection rates of contrast material on early contrast enhancement. AJR Am JRoentgenol. 1994;163:87-92.
18. Yamashita Y, Komohara Y, Takahashi M, et al. Abdominal helical CT: evaluation of optimal doses of intravenous contrast material - a prospective randomized study. Radiology. 2000;216:718-723.
19. Hopper KD, Mosher TJ, Kasales CJ, et al. Thoracic spiral CT: delivery of contrast material pushed with injectable saline solution in a power injector. Radiology. 1997;205:269-271.
20. Haage P, Schmitz-Rode T, Hubner D, et al. Reduction of contrast material dose and artifacts by a saline flush using a double power injector in helical CT of the thorax. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1049-1053.
21. Schreyer HH, Uggowitzer MM, Ruppert-Kohlmayr A. Helical CT of the urinary organs. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:575-591.
22. Levi C, Gray JE, McCullough EC, et al. The unreliability of CT numbers as absolute values. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1982;139:443-447.