HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ho, L. M. Articles by DeLong, D. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ho, L. M. Articles by DeLong, D. M.

Determining Contrast Medium Dose and Rate on Basis of Lean Body Weight: Does This Strategy Improve Patient-to-Patient Uniformity of Hepatic Enhancement during Multi–Detector Row CT?¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC 27710. Received March 1, 2006; revision requested April 27; revision received June 7; accepted June 26; final version accepted September 5. Supported by Bracco Diagnostics. Address correspondence to L.M.H. (e-mail: ho000004{at}mc.duke.edu).

Purpose: To prospectively evaluate the use of lean body weight (LBW) as the main determinant of the volume and rate of contrast material administration during multi–detector row computed tomography of the liver.

Materials and Methods: This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval. All patients gave written informed consent. Four protocols were compared. Standard protocol involved 125 mL of iopamidol injected at 4 mL/sec. Total body weight (TBW) protocol involved 0.7 g iodine per kilogram of TBW. Calculated LBW and measured LBW protocols involved 0.86 g of iodine per kilogram and 0.92 g of iodine per kilogram calculated or measured LBW for men and women, respectively. Injection rate used for the three experimental protocols was determined proportionally on the basis of the calculated volume of contrast material. Postcontrast attenuation measurements during portal venous phase were obtained in liver, portal vein, and aorta for each group and were summed for each patient. Patient-to-patient enhancement variability in same group was measured with Levene test. Two-tailed t test was used to compare the three experimental protocols with the standard protocol.

Results: Data analysis was performed in 101 patients (25 or 26 patients per group), including 56 men and 45 women (mean age, 53 years). Average summed attenuation values for standard, TBW, calculated LBW, and measured LBW protocols were 419 HU ± 50 (standard deviation), 443 HU ± 51, 433 HU ± 50, and 426 HU ± 33, respectively (P = not significant for all). Levene test results for summed attenuation data for standard, TBW, calculated LBW, and measured LBW protocols were 40 ± 29, 38 ± 33 (P = .83), 35 ± 35 (P = .56), and 26 ± 19 (P = .05), respectively.

Conclusion: By excluding highly variable but poorly perfused adipose tissue from calculation of contrast medium dose, the measured LBW protocol may lessen patient-to-patient enhancement variability while maintaining satisfactory hepatic and vascular enhancement.

© RSNA, 2007

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Okada, T. Murakami, S. Kumano, I. Imaoka, T. Shimono, R. Ashikaga, and M. Hosono Comparison Between One-Route and Two-Route Injection for Liver and Aortic Enhancement Using MDCT Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2008; 190(6): W323 - W326. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]