MP09-20 CONTRAST AGENTS FOR UROLOGIC FLUOROSCOPY: A COMPARATIVE PHANTOM STUDY

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP09-20 CONTRAST AGENTS FOR UROLOGIC FLUOROSCOPY: A COMPARATIVE PHANTOM STUDY Anahita Heshmat, Gene Austin, Manuel Arreola, and Benjamin Canales Anahita HeshmatAnahita Heshmat More articles by this author , Gene AustinGene Austin More articles by this author , Manuel ArreolaManuel Arreola More articles by this author , and Benjamin CanalesBenjamin Canales More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003224.20AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The recent international shortage of iodinated contrast agents has driven many clinicians to search for alternative agents to image a variety of urologic conditions in order to maintain clinic workflow. We sought to standardize these agents by a quantitative comparison using a phantom model. METHODS: A donut shape gel phantom with 10-mm wide plastic rods filled with Omnipaque-300, Omnipaque-350, Visipaque-270, Isovue-370, Gadavist, Eovist, and liquid water, was used to represent a patient being imaged for an urethrogram study utilizing a mobile fluoroscopy. The phantom was imaged with various acquisitions (Auto tube voltage (kVp), tube current (mA), and various dose modes, frame rates, and magnification modes) to compare and asses image quality for different contrast agents. Quantitative evaluations were performed with extracting regions of interest (ROIs) of each contrast rod to gather mean pixel values and standard deviations. These ROI measurements were then utilized to calculate contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) as the metric appropriate for image quality evaluation. RESULTS: The mean pixel and CNR values of Omnipaque-300, Omnipaque-350, Visipaque-270, Isovue-370, and Gadavist showed no difference in visibility among these five contrast agents while using different dose modes, frame rates, and magnification modes. However, that was not the case for Eovist as its mean pixel value and CNR value were close to those of liquid water. Furthermore, changing magnification from normal to magnification 1 and magnification 2 increased the mean pixel values and CNR values at normal dose and continuous frame rate. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of Eovist, the iodinated and gadolinium-based contrast agents we tested can be interchanged without compromising visibility or image quality based upon this comparative phantom study. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e113 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Anahita Heshmat More articles by this author Gene Austin More articles by this author Manuel Arreola More articles by this author Benjamin Canales More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...