Abstract

To compare the impact of iodine concentration using two different contrast materials (CM) at standardized iodine delivery rate (IDR) and overall iodine load in 16-multidetector-row-CT-angiography (MDCTA) of the pulmonary arteries of 192 patients with known or suspected pulmonary embolism. One hundred three patients (group A) received 148 ml of a CM containing 300 mg iodine/ml (Ultravist 300, BayerScheringPharma) at a flow rate of 4.9 ml/s. Eighty-nine patients (group B) received 120 ml of a CM with a concentration of 370 mg iodine/ml (Ultravist 370) at a flow rate of 4.0 ml/s, resulting in a standardized IDR (approximately 1.5 gI/s) and the same overall amount of iodine (44.4 g). Both CM injections were followed by a saline chaser. Mean density values were determined in the pulmonary trunk, the ascending and the descending aorta, respectively. Applying repeated-measures ANOVA, no statistically significant differences between both MDCTA protocols were found (p = 0.5790): the mean density in the pulmonary trunk was 355 +/- 116 Hounsfield Units (group A) and 358 +/- 115 (group B). The corresponding values for the ascending and descending aorta were 295 +/- 79 (group A) and 284 +/- 65 (group B) as well as 272 +/- 71 and 262 +/- 70. In conclusion, the use of standardized IDR and overall iodine load provides comparable intravascular CM density in pulmonary 16-MDCTA for delivering contrast materials with different iodine concentrations.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call