Advertisement

Comparison of three oral contrast preparations for magnetic resonance enterography in pediatric patients with known or suspected Crohn disease: a prospective randomized trial

  • Ravi V. GottumukkalaEmail author
  • Annette LaPointe
  • Donna Sargent
  • Michael S. Gee
Original Article
  • 52 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Oral contrast preparation is fundamental to ensuring diagnostic examination quality for magnetic resonance enterography (MRE), yet little is known about the relative palatability and tolerability of various oral contrast agents in pediatric patients with known or suspected inflammatory bowel disease.

Objective

We prospectively compared three MRE oral preparations in pediatric patients with known or suspected Crohn disease with respect to patient-reported tolerability and radiologist-determined small-bowel distension and opacification.

Materials and methods

Seventy-five pediatric patients (mean age 14.8 years, 55% female) with known or suspected Crohn disease referred for MRE were randomized to an oral preparation with a sugar alcohol-based flavored beverage (Breeza), polyethylene glycol preparation (MiraLAX), or low-concentration barium sulfate suspension (VoLumen). Patients were instructed to consume oral contrast agent (using a weight-based protocol) beginning 60 min prior to MRE imaging. Following MRE, patients completed a questionnaire regarding their oral preparation solution including: taste (1–5 scale), feeling of well-being (1–5 scale) and willingness to consume again (yes/no). Two radiologists reviewed all MRE exams and rated exams for global features (active disease, overall small-bowel distention [1–4 scale]) and features specific to individual small-bowel segments (extent of distention, maximal luminal diameter, opacification, and susceptibility artifact). Statistical methods included one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey honest difference and Fisher exact tests.

Results

The overall rate of completion of the entire prescribed contrast volume was 53% (40/75), with a significantly higher rate of completion for MiraLAX than for VoLumen (70% vs. 30%, P=0.007). Crossover to a different preparation occurred in nine patients (12%) and was significantly more frequent when the initial preparation was VoLumen versus MiraLAX (29% vs. 0%, P=0.005). Mean subjective taste ratings for both MiraLAX (3.4, P<0.0001) and Breeza (2.8, P=0.006) were superior to those of VoLumen (1.9), which persisted in the subset of patients with MRE evidence of active Crohn disease. Patients who consumed MiraLAX were more likely to be willing to drink it again compared to those consuming VoLumen (82% vs. 46%, P=0.009). Overall small-bowel distention and bowel-segment-specific metrics (distention, maximal diameter, opacification and susceptibility) did not significantly differ among groups.

Conclusion

In pediatric patients with known or suspected Crohn disease, MiraLAX and Breeza were rated as more palatable than VoLumen, and all three preparations achieved a similar degree of small-bowel distension and opacification on MRE. Imaging centers performing MRE should stock multiple oral contrast preparations because a sizable proportion of children require more than one agent to ingest the requisite oral contrast volume.

Keywords

Adolescents Children Crohn disease Inflammatory bowel disease Magnetic resonance enterography Oral contrast agent 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was presented as an oral presentation at the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) 2018 annual meeting in Nashville, TN.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Mojtahed A, Gee MS (2018) Magnetic resonance enterography evaluation of Crohn disease activity and mucosal healing in young patients. Pediatr Radiol 48:1273–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Puylaert CAJ, Tielbeek JAW, Bipat S, Stoker J (2015) Grading of Crohn’s disease activity using CT, MRI, US and scintigraphy: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 25:3295–3313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ajaj W, Goyen M, Schneemann H et al (2005) Oral contrast agents for small bowel distension in MRI: influence of the osmolarity for small bowel distention. Eur Radiol 15:1400–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuehle CA, Ajaj W, Ladd SC et al (2006) Hydro-MRI of the small bowel: effect of contrast volume, timing of contrast administration, and data acquisition on bowel distention. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:W375–W385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Megibow AJ, Babb JS, Hecht EM et al (2006) Evaluation of bowel distention and bowel wall appearance by using neutral oral contrast agent for multi–detector row CT. Radiology 238:87–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Young BM, Fletcher JG, Booya F et al (2008) Head-to-head comparison of oral contrast agents for cross-sectional enterography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 32:32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kolbe AB, Fletcher JG, Froemming AT et al (2016) Evaluation of patient tolerance and small-bowel distention with a new small-bowel distending agent for enterography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:994–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dillman JR, Towbin AJ, Imbus R et al (2018) Comparison of two neutral oral contrast agents in pediatric patients: a prospective randomized study. Radiology 288:245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosner B (2010) Fundamentals of biostatistics, 7th edn. Brooks/Cole, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    (2013) Compare k means 1-way ANOVA pairwise, 1-sided, power and sample size calculators, HyLown Consulting LLC. http://powerandsamplesize.com/Calculators/Compare-k-Means/1-Way-ANOVA-Pairwise-1-Sided. Accessed 1 Nov 2017Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gunderman RB, Trevino MA (2016) Understanding and enhancing the pediatric radiology patient’s experience. Acad Radiol 23:262–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alexander M (2012) Managing patient stress in pediatric radiology. Radiol Technol 83:549–560Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Völkl-Kernstock S, Felber M, Schabmann A et al (2008) Comparing stress levels in children aged 2–8 years and in their accompanying parents during first-time versus repeated voiding cystourethrograms. Wien Klin Wochenschr 120:414–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations