Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinically useful dilution factors for iodine and gadolinium contrast material: an animal model of pediatric digital subtraction angiography using state-of-the-art flat-panel detectors

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Iodinated and gadolinium contrast agents pose some risk for certain pediatric patients, including allergic-like reactions, contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF). Digital flat-panel detectors enhance image quality during angiography and might allow use of more dilute contrast material to decrease risk of complications that might be dose-dependent, such as CIN and NSF.

Objective

To assess the maximum dilution factors for iodine- and gadolinium-based contrast agents suitable for vascular imaging with fluoroscopy and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) on digital flat-panel detectors in an animal model.

Materials and methods

We performed selective catheterization of the abdominal aorta, renal artery and common carotid artery on a rabbit. In each vessel we performed fluoroscopy and DSA during contrast material injection using iodinated and gadolinium contrast material at 100%, 80%, 50%, 33% and 20% dilutions. An image quality score (0 to 3) was assigned by each of eight evaluators. Intracorrelation coefficient, paired t-test, one-way repeated analysis of variance, Spearman correlation and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were applied to the data.

Results

Overall the image quality scores correlated linearly with dilution levels. For iodinated contrast material, the optimum cut-off level for DSA when a score of at least 2 is acceptable is above 33%; it is above 50% when a score of 3 is necessary. For gadolinium contrast material, the optimum cut-off for DSA images is above 50% when a score of at least 2 is acceptable and above 80% when a score of 3 is necessary.

Conclusion

Knowledge of the relationship between image quality and contrast material dilution might allow a decrease in overall contrast load while maintaining appropriate image quality when using digital flat-panel detectors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media (2012) ACR manual on contrast media version 8. http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PDF/QualitySafety/Resources/Contrast%20Manual/FullManual.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2013

  2. Solomon R, Dauerman HL (2010) Contrast-induced acute kidney injury. Circulation 122:2451–2455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Weisbord SD, Palevsky PM (2011) Contrast-induced acute kidney injury: short- and long-term implications. Semin Nephrol 31:300–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Halvorsen RA (2008) Which study when? Iodinated contrast-enhanced CT versus gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 249:9–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bruce RJ, Djamali A, Shinki K et al (2009) Background fluctuation of kidney function versus contrast-induced nephrotoxicity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:711–718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Newhouse JH, Kho D, Rao QA et al (2008) Frequency of serum creatinine changes in the absence of iodinated contrast material: implications for studies of contrast nephrotoxicity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:376–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. McDonald JS, McDonald RJ, Comin J et al (2013) Frequency of acute kidney injury following intravenous contrast medium administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 267:119–128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Katzberg RW, Newhouse JH (2010) Intravenous contrast medium-induced nephrotoxicity: is the medical risk really as great as we have come to believe? Radiology 256:21–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Dillman JR et al (2013) Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material. Radiology 267:94–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ajami G, Derakhshan A, Amoozgar H et al (2010) Risk of nephropathy after consumption of nonionic contrast media by children undergoing cardiac angiography: a prospective study. Pediatr Cardiol 31:668–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ellis JH, Cohan RH (2009) Reducing the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy: a perspective on the controversies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1544–1549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Seeliger E, Sendeski M, Rihal CS et al (2012) Contrast-induced kidney injury: mechanisms, risk factors, and prevention. Eur Heart J 33:2007–2015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stratta P, Quaglia M, Airoldi A et al (2012) Structure-function relationships of iodinated contrast media and risk of nephrotoxicity. Curr Med Chem 19:736–743

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mortele KJ, Oliva MR, Ondategui S et al (2005) Universal use of nonionic iodinated contrast medium for CT: evaluation of safety in a large urban teaching hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:31–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cochran ST, Bomyea K, Sayre JW (2001) Trends in adverse events after IV administration of contrast media. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:1385–1388

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Davenport MS, Wang CL, Bashir MR et al (2012) Rate of contrast material extravasations and allergic-like reactions: effect of extrinsic warming of low-osmolality iodinated CT contrast material to 37 degrees C. Radiology 262:475–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dillman JR, Strouse PJ, Ellis JH et al (2007) Incidence and severity of acute allergic-like reactions to i.v. nonionic iodinated contrast material in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1643–1647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Spinosa DJ, Kaufmann JA, Hartwell GD (2002) Gadolinium chelates in angiography and interventional radiology: a useful alternative to iodinated contrast media for angiography. Radiology 223:319–325, discussion 326–327

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kalsch H, Kalsch T, Eggebrecht H et al (2008) Gadolinium-based coronary angiography in patients with contraindication for iodinated x-ray contrast medium: a word of caution. J Interv Cardiol 21:167–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dillman JR, Ellis JH, Cohan RH et al (2007) Frequency and severity of acute allergic-like reactions to gadolinium-containing i.v. contrast media in children and adults. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1533–1538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Karcaaltincaba M, Oguz B, Haliloglu M (2009) Current status of contrast-induced nephropathy and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in children. Pediatr Radiol 39:382–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Erly WK, Zaetta J, Borders GT et al (2000) Gadopentetate dimeglumine as a contrast agent in common carotid arteriography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 21:964–967

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Le Blanche AF, Tassart M, Deux JF et al (2002) Gadolinium-enhanced digital subtraction angiography of hemodialysis fistulas: a diagnostic and therapeutic approach. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:1023–1028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Burry MV, Cohen J, Mericle RA (2004) Use of gadolinium as an intraarterial contrast agent for pediatric neuroendovascular procedures. J Neurosurg 100:150–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pepe MS (2003) The receiver operating characteristic curve. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Division of Pediatric Interventional Radiology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 3333 Burnet Ave., Cincinnati, OH, 45229-3030, USA

    John M. Racadio, Judy M. Racadio, Neil D. Johnson, Kamlesh U. Kukreja, Manish N. Patel & Todd A. Abruzzo

  2. College of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Soumya R. Kashinkunti & Mary Beth Privitera

  3. Interventional X-ray Department, Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands

    Rami A. Nachabe

  4. Department of Veterinary Services, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Jasmine E. Hales

Authors
  1. John M. Racadio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Soumya R. Kashinkunti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rami A. Nachabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Judy M. Racadio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Neil D. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kamlesh U. Kukreja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Manish N. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mary Beth Privitera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jasmine E. Hales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Todd A. Abruzzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John M. Racadio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Racadio, J.M., Kashinkunti, S.R., Nachabe, R.A. et al. Clinically useful dilution factors for iodine and gadolinium contrast material: an animal model of pediatric digital subtraction angiography using state-of-the-art flat-panel detectors. Pediatr Radiol 43, 1491–1501 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-013-2723-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-013-2723-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation