| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Gastrointestinal Imaging |
1 From the Division of Abdominal Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, White 270, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114. Received July 27, 2004; revision requested October 6; revision received March 19, 2005; accepted April 15. Supported by E-Z-Em, Amersham Health (now GE Healthcare), the General Electric–Association of University Radiologists Radiology Research Academic Fellowship (GERRAF), and NCI 1 K22 CA098422 A 01. Address correspondence to M.E.Z. (e-mail: mzalis{at}mgh.harvard.edu).
Purpose: To prospectively compare the homogeneity, adequacy, and patient acceptance of nonionic iodine-based regimens with those of a barium-based regimen for computed tomographic (CT) colonography with electronic subtraction cleansing.
Materials and Methods: After institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained, 68 subjects (41 men (60%) men, 27 (40%) women; mean age, 60 years ± 6 [standard deviation]) with average or moderate risk factors for development of colorectal carcinoma were recruited and placed into three study groups. Group 1 (n = 25) ingested 150-mL aliquots of 2% barium sulfate suspension with meals and snacks for 48 hours prior to imaging, without other diet modification or a cathartic. Group 2 (n = 21) ingested 10-mL aliquots of nonionic iodinated contrast material (iopromide) with a concentration of 300 mg per milliliter with meals and snacks for 2 days before imaging, without diet modification or a cathartic. Group 3 (n = 22) ingested nonionic iodinated contrast material (iohexol) with a concentration of 300 mg per milliliter with meals and snacks for 2 days before imaging and ingested 34 g of magnesium citrate the evening prior to imaging. CT colonography was also performed on 10 control subjects who ingested polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution prior to imaging. Subjective and numerical measures of bowel preparation quality, homogeneity, and patient comfort among the noncathartic and cathartic cohorts were compared with nonparametric analysis of variance, the Fisher exact test, and the F test, as appropriate. The study was HIPAA compliant.
Results: Study subjects who received tagging preparations reported significantly improved discomfort scores when compared with those of the control subjects (P < .05, each comparison). There was no significant difference in discomfort scores among groups 1, 2, and 3. For each reader, scores of subtracted image readability were highest for group 3. Dichotomized rates of preparation "success" were also greatest for group 3.
Conclusion: In this series, the patient discomfort scores were significantly improved with tagging preparations for CT colonography. Nonionic iodinated contrast material in conjunction with a hyperosmotic laxative (magnesium citrate) was associated with the best subjective and numerical indices of readability.
© RSNA, 2006
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  D. Regge, C. Laudi, G. Galatola, P. Della Monica, L. Bonelli, G. Angelelli, R. Asnaghi, B. Barbaro, C. Bartolozzi, D. Bielen, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Computed Tomographic Colonography for the Detection of Advanced Neoplasia in Individuals at Increased Risk of Colorectal Cancer JAMA, June 17, 2009; 301(23): 2453 - 2461. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. W. O. Serlie, A. H. de Vries, L. J. van Vliet, C. Y. Nio, R. Truyen, J. Stoker, and F. M. Vos Lesion Conspicuity and Efficiency of CT Colonography with Electronic Cleansing Based on a Three-Material Transition Model Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2008; 191(5): 1493 - 1502. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. H. de Vries, H. W. Venema, J. Florie, C. Y. Nio, and J. Stoker Influence of Tagged Fecal Material on Detectability of Colorectal Polyps at CT: Phantom Study Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2008; 191(4): W181 - W189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Jensch, A. H. de Vries, D. Pot, J. Peringa, S. Bipat, J. Florie, R. E. van Gelder, and J. Stoker Image Quality and Patient Acceptance of Four Regimens with Different Amounts of Mild Laxatives for CT Colonography Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2008; 191(1): 158 - 167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E J HALL and D J BRENNER Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology Br. J. Radiol., May 1, 2008; 81(965): 362 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Jensch, A. H. de Vries, J. Peringa, S. Bipat, E. Dekker, L. C. Baak, J. F. Bartelsman, A. Heutinck, A. D. Montauban van Swijndregt, and J. Stoker CT Colonography with Limited Bowel Preparation: Performance Characteristics in an Increased-Risk Population Radiology, April 1, 2008; 247(1): 122 - 132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. D. Johnson, A. Manduca, J. G. Fletcher, R. L. MacCarty, M. J. Carston, W. S. Harmsen, and J. N. Mandrekar Noncathartic CT Colonography with Stool Tagging: Performance With and Without Electronic Stool Subtraction Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2008; 190(2): 361 - 366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. S. Lee, S. H. Park, E. K. Choi, S. Y. Kim, M.-J. Kim, K. H. Lee, and Y. H. Kim Colorectal Polyps on Portal Phase Contrast-Enhanced CT Colonography: Lesion Attenuation and Distinction from Tagged Feces Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2007; 189(1): 35 - 40. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. J. Beebe, C. D. Johnson, S. M. Stoner, K. J. Anderson, and P. J. Limburg Assessing Attitudes Toward Laxative Preparation in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Effects on Future Testing: Potential Receptivity to Computed Tomographic Colonography Mayo Clin. Proc., June 1, 2007; 82(6): 666 - 671. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
