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

This Article Abstract 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 Awai, K. Articles by Hori, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Awai, K. Articles by Hori, S.

Effect of Contrast Material Injection Duration and Rate on Aortic Peak Time and Peak Enhancement at Dynamic CT Involving Injection Protocol with Dose Tailored to Patient Weight¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, Kinki University School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan (K.A.); and Department of Radiology, Rinku General Medical Center, Osaka, Japan (K.H., S.H.). Received August 22, 2002; revision requested October 29; final revision received May 16, 2003; accepted June 18. Address correspondence to K.A., Department of Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, 1-1-1 Honjyo, Kumamoto 860-8556, Japan.

View larger version (54K): [in a new window]   Figure 1a. Scatter diagrams show relationships between patient weight, injection rate, and aortic peak time in patient groups A, B, and C. (a) In group A, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and aortic peak time or between injection rate and aortic peak time. Mean aortic peak time was 21.4 seconds ± 2.3. Aortic peak time values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (b) In group B, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and aortic peak time or between injection rate and aortic peak time. Mean aortic peak time was 29.2 seconds ± 2.0. Aortic peak time values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (c) In group C, there was a significant positive correlation between patient weight and aortic peak time.

View larger version (54K): [in a new window]   Figure 1b. Scatter diagrams show relationships between patient weight, injection rate, and aortic peak time in patient groups A, B, and C. (a) In group A, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and aortic peak time or between injection rate and aortic peak time. Mean aortic peak time was 21.4 seconds ± 2.3. Aortic peak time values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (b) In group B, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and aortic peak time or between injection rate and aortic peak time. Mean aortic peak time was 29.2 seconds ± 2.0. Aortic peak time values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (c) In group C, there was a significant positive correlation between patient weight and aortic peak time.

View larger version (47K): [in a new window]   Figure 1c. Scatter diagrams show relationships between patient weight, injection rate, and aortic peak time in patient groups A, B, and C. (a) In group A, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and aortic peak time or between injection rate and aortic peak time. Mean aortic peak time was 21.4 seconds ± 2.3. Aortic peak time values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (b) In group B, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and aortic peak time or between injection rate and aortic peak time. Mean aortic peak time was 29.2 seconds ± 2.0. Aortic peak time values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (c) In group C, there was a significant positive correlation between patient weight and aortic peak time.

View larger version (53K): [in a new window]   Figure 2a. Scatter diagrams show relationships between patient weight, injection rate, and peak enhancement of the aorta in groups A, B, and C. (a) In group A, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and aortic peak enhancement value or between injection rate and aortic peak enhancement value. Mean aortic peak enhancement was 317.2 HU ± 45.4. Aortic peak enhancement values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (b) In group B, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and aortic peak enhancement value or between injection rate and aortic peak enhancement value. Mean aortic peak enhancement was 269.1 HU ± 32.7. Aortic peak enhancement values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (c) In group C, there was a significant negative correlation between patient weight and aortic peak enhancement.

View larger version (50K): [in a new window]   Figure 2b. Scatter diagrams show relationships between patient weight, injection rate, and peak enhancement of the aorta in groups A, B, and C. (a) In group A, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and aortic peak enhancement value or between injection rate and aortic peak enhancement value. Mean aortic peak enhancement was 317.2 HU ± 45.4. Aortic peak enhancement values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (b) In group B, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and aortic peak enhancement value or between injection rate and aortic peak enhancement value. Mean aortic peak enhancement was 269.1 HU ± 32.7. Aortic peak enhancement values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (c) In group C, there was a significant negative correlation between patient weight and aortic peak enhancement.

View larger version (45K): [in a new window]   Figure 2c. Scatter diagrams show relationships between patient weight, injection rate, and peak enhancement of the aorta in groups A, B, and C. (a) In group A, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and aortic peak enhancement value or between injection rate and aortic peak enhancement value. Mean aortic peak enhancement was 317.2 HU ± 45.4. Aortic peak enhancement values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (b) In group B, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and aortic peak enhancement value or between injection rate and aortic peak enhancement value. Mean aortic peak enhancement was 269.1 HU ± 32.7. Aortic peak enhancement values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (c) In group C, there was a significant negative correlation between patient weight and aortic peak enhancement.

View larger version (50K): [in a new window]   Figure 3a. Scatter diagrams show relationships between patient weight, injection rate, and T200 in groups A, B, and C. (a) In group A, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and T200 or between injection rate and T200. Mean T200 was 20.6 seconds ± 2.8. T200 values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (b) In group B, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and T200 or between injection rate and T200. Mean T200 was 23.6 seconds ± 4.1. T200 values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (c) In group C, there was a significant positive correlation between patient weight and T200.

View larger version (52K): [in a new window]   Figure 3b. Scatter diagrams show relationships between patient weight, injection rate, and T200 in groups A, B, and C. (a) In group A, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and T200 or between injection rate and T200. Mean T200 was 20.6 seconds ± 2.8. T200 values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (b) In group B, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and T200 or between injection rate and T200. Mean T200 was 23.6 seconds ± 4.1. T200 values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (c) In group C, there was a significant positive correlation between patient weight and T200.

View larger version (50K): [in a new window]   Figure 3c. Scatter diagrams show relationships between patient weight, injection rate, and T200 in groups A, B, and C. (a) In group A, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and T200 or between injection rate and T200. Mean T200 was 20.6 seconds ± 2.8. T200 values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (b) In group B, there were no significant correlations between patient weight and T200 or between injection rate and T200. Mean T200 was 23.6 seconds ± 4.1. T200 values were relatively uniformly distributed within the rectangular area of the mean ± about 2 SDs at all patient weights. (c) In group C, there was a significant positive correlation between patient weight and T200.

View larger version (39K): [in a new window]   Figure 4a. Graphs illustrate comparisons of aortic peak time, aortic peak enhancement, and T200 between groups A and C, with patient weight divided into 10-kg intervals. (a) In patients weighing less than 60 kg in group A, the aortic peak time was significantly shorter than that in group C. In patients weighing 60-69 kg, there was no significant difference in aortic peak time between groups A and C. In patients weighing 70 kg or more, the aortic peak time in group C was significantly longer than that in group A. (b) In patients weighing less than 60 kg in group C, the aortic peak enhancement value was significantly higher than that in group A. In patients weighing 60 kg or more, there was no significant difference in aortic peak enhancement values between groups A and C. (c) In patients weighing less than 50 kg in group C, the T200 was significantly shorter than that in group A. In patients weighing 50-69 kg, there was no significant difference in T200 between groups A and C. In patients weighing 70 kg or more in group C, the T200 was significantly longer than that in group A.

View larger version (37K): [in a new window]   Figure 4b. Graphs illustrate comparisons of aortic peak time, aortic peak enhancement, and T200 between groups A and C, with patient weight divided into 10-kg intervals. (a) In patients weighing less than 60 kg in group A, the aortic peak time was significantly shorter than that in group C. In patients weighing 60-69 kg, there was no significant difference in aortic peak time between groups A and C. In patients weighing 70 kg or more, the aortic peak time in group C was significantly longer than that in group A. (b) In patients weighing less than 60 kg in group C, the aortic peak enhancement value was significantly higher than that in group A. In patients weighing 60 kg or more, there was no significant difference in aortic peak enhancement values between groups A and C. (c) In patients weighing less than 50 kg in group C, the T200 was significantly shorter than that in group A. In patients weighing 50-69 kg, there was no significant difference in T200 between groups A and C. In patients weighing 70 kg or more in group C, the T200 was significantly longer than that in group A.

View larger version (35K): [in a new window]   Figure 4c. Graphs illustrate comparisons of aortic peak time, aortic peak enhancement, and T200 between groups A and C, with patient weight divided into 10-kg intervals. (a) In patients weighing less than 60 kg in group A, the aortic peak time was significantly shorter than that in group C. In patients weighing 60-69 kg, there was no significant difference in aortic peak time between groups A and C. In patients weighing 70 kg or more, the aortic peak time in group C was significantly longer than that in group A. (b) In patients weighing less than 60 kg in group C, the aortic peak enhancement value was significantly higher than that in group A. In patients weighing 60 kg or more, there was no significant difference in aortic peak enhancement values between groups A and C. (c) In patients weighing less than 50 kg in group C, the T200 was significantly shorter than that in group A. In patients weighing 50-69 kg, there was no significant difference in T200 between groups A and C. In patients weighing 70 kg or more in group C, the T200 was significantly longer than that in group A.