Abstract
High-quality computed tomography (CT) exams are critical to maximizing radiologist’s interpretive ability. Exam quality in part depends on proper contrast administration. We examined injector data from consecutive abdominal and pelvic CT exams to analyze variation in contrast administration. Discrepancies between intended IV contrast dose and flow rate with the actual administered contrast dose and measured flow rate were common. In particular, delivered contrast dose discrepancies of at least 10% occurred in 13% of exams while discrepancies in flow rate of at least 10% occurred in 42% of exams. Injector logs are useful for assessing and tracking this type of variability which may confound contrast administration optimization and standardization efforts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bae KT. Optimization of contrast enhancement in thoracic MDCT. Radiol Clin N Am 48:9–29, 2010
Bae KT, Heiken JP. Scan and contrast administration principles of MDCT. Eur Radiol Suppl 15:e46–e59, 2005
Fleischmann D, Kamaya A. Optimal vascular and parenchymal contrast enhancement: the current state of the art. Radiol Clini N Am 47:13–26, 2009
Johnson TRC, Nikolaou K, Wintersperger BJ, et al.: Optimization of contrast material administration for electrocardiogram-gated computed tomographic angiography of the chest. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31:265–271, 2007
Numburi UD, Chatzimavroudis GP, Stillman AE, et al.: Patient-specific contrast injection protocols for cardiovascular multidetector row computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31:281–289, 2007
Ramos-Duran L, Kalafut J. Current contrast media delivery strategies for cardiac and pulmonary multidetector-row computed tomography angiography. J Thorac 25:270–277, 2010
Yamaguchi I, Kidoya E, Suzuki M, et al.: Optimizing scan timing of hepatic arterial phase by physiologic pharmacokinetic analysis in bolus-tracking technique by multi-detector row computed tomography. Radiological Phys Technol 4:43–52, 2011
Brink JA: Contrast optimization and scan timing for single and multidetector-row computed tomography. J Comp Assist Tomogr 27 Suppl 1:S3–8
Tschugunow A, Puesken M, Juergens KU, et al. Optimization of scan delay for routine abdominal 64-slice CT with body weight-adapted application of contrast material. RöFo: Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Röntgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin 181:683–690, 2009
McCollough C, Bruesewitz M. CT dose reduction and dose management tools: overview of available options. Radiographics ;26:503–513, 2006
Jafari ME, Simmons LD. Reducing ct radiation dose: a community hospital’s experience. J Am Coll Radiol: JACR 8:588–590, 2011
Rist C, Nikolaou K, Kirchin MA, et al.: Contrast bolus optimization for cardiac 16-slice computed tomography: comparison of contrast medium formulations containing 300 and 400 mg of iodine per milliliter. Investig Radiol 41:460–467, 2006
Sandstede J, Tschammler A, Beer M, et al.: Optimization of automatic bolus tracking for timing of the arterial phase of helical liver CT. Eur Radiol 11:1396–1400, 2001
Bagshaw SM, Culleton BF. Contrast-induced nephropathy: epidemiology and prevention. Minerva Cardioangiol 54:109–129, 2006
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Robinson, T.J., Robinson, J.D., Hippe, D.S. et al. Challenges to Protocol Optimization Due to Unexpected Variation of CT Contrast Dose Amount and Flow. J Digit Imaging 26, 402–405 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9544-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-012-9544-9