Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 18, Issue 8, pp 1683–1689 | Cite as

Effect of varying injection rates of a saline chaser on aortic enhancement in CT angiography: phantom study

  • Sebastian T. SchinderaEmail author
  • Rendon C. Nelson
  • Laurens Howle
  • Eli Nichols
  • David M. DeLong
  • Elmar M. Merkle
Contrast Media

Abstract

The effect of varying injection rates of a saline chaser on aortic enhancement in computed tomography (CT) angiography was determined. Single-level, dynamic CT images of a physiological flow phantom were acquired between 0 and 50 s after initiation of contrast medium injection. Four injection protocols were applied with identical contrast medium administration (150 ml injected at 5 ml/s). For baseline protocol A, no saline chaser was applied. For protocols B, C, and D, 50 ml of saline was injected at 2.5 ml/s, 5 ml/s, and 10 ml/s, respectively. Injecting the saline chaser at twice the rate as the contrast medium yielded significantly higher peak aortic enhancement values than injecting the saline at half or at the same rate as the contrast medium (P < 0.05). Average peak aortic enhancement (HU) measured 214, 214, 218, and 226 for protocols A, B, C, and D, respectively. The slower the saline-chaser injection rate, the longer the duration of 90% peak enhancement: 13.6, 12.2, and 11.7 s for protocols B, C, and D, respectively (P > 0.05). In CT angiography, saline chaser injected at twice the rate as the contrast medium leads to increased peak aortic enhancement and saline chaser injected at half the rate tends towards prolonging peak aortic enhancement plateau.

Keywords

CT angiography Contrast media Saline-chaser technique 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Bracco Diagnostics (Princeton, N.J.) provided financial support for the design of the physiological aortic flow phantom, and for the utilized contrast medium volume. However, only the authors of this manuscript had access to the study’s data and the information submitted for publication.

References

  1. 1.
    de Monye C, Cademartiri F, de Weert TT, Siepman DA, Dippel DW, van Der Lugt A (2005) Sixteen-detector row CT angiography of carotid arteries: comparison of different volumes of contrast material with and without a bolus chaser. Radiology 237:555–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haage P, Schmitz-Rode T, Hubner D, Piroth W, Gunther RW (2000) Reduction of contrast material dose and artifacts by a saline flush using a double power injector in helical CT of the thorax. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:1049–1053PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Irie T, Kajitani M, Yamaguchi M, Itai Y (2002) Contrast-enhanced CT with saline flush technique using two automated injectors: how much contrast medium does it save? J Comput Assist Tomogr 26:287–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schoellnast H, Tillich M, Deutschmann MJ, Deutschmann HA, Schaffler GJ, Portugaller HR (2004) Aortoiliac enhancement during computed tomography angiography with reduced contrast material dose and saline solution flush: influence on magnitude and uniformity of the contrast column. Invest Radiol 39:20–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cademartiri F, Mollet N, van der Lugt A et al (2004) Non-invasive 16-row multislice CT coronary angiography: usefulness of saline chaser. Eur Radiol 14:178–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hopper KD, Mosher TJ, Kasales CJ, TenHave TR, Tully DA, Weaver JS (1997) Thoracic spiral CT: delivery of contrast material pushed with injectable saline solution in a power injector. Radiology 205:269–271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Orlandini F, Boini S, Iochum-Duchamps S, Batch T, Zhu X, Blum A (2006) Assessment of the use of a saline chaser to reduce the volume of contrast medium in abdominal CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:511–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee CH, Goo JM, Bae KT et al (2007) CTA contrast enhancement of the aorta and pulmonary artery: the effect of saline chase injected at two different rates in a canine experimental model. Invest Radiol 42:486–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bae KT, Tran HQ, Heiken JP (2000) Multiphasic injection method for uniform prolonged vascular enhancement at CT angiography: pharmacokinetic analysis and experimental porcine model. Radiology 216:872–880PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bae KT, Heiken JP, Brink JA (1998) Aortic and hepatic contrast medium enhancement at CT. Part I. Prediction with a computer model. Radiology 207:647–655Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dorio PJ, Lee FT Jr, Henseler KP et al (2003) Using a saline chaser to decrease contrast media in abdominal CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:929–934PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schoellnast H, Tillich M, Deutschmann HA et al (2003) Abdominal multidetector row computed tomography: reduction of cost and contrast material dose using saline flush. J Comput Assist Tomogr 27:847–853PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schoellnast H, Tillich M, Deutschmann HA et al (2004) Improvement of parenchymal and vascular enhancement using saline flush and power injection for multiple-detector-row abdominal CT. Eur Radiol 14:659–664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Itoh S, Ikeda M, Achiwa M, Ota T, Satake H, Ishigaki T (2003) Multiphase contrast-enhanced CT of the liver with a multislice CT scanner. Eur Radiol 13:1085–1094PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian T. Schindera
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Rendon C. Nelson
    • 1
  • Laurens Howle
    • 3
  • Eli Nichols
    • 3
  • David M. DeLong
    • 1
  • Elmar M. Merkle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Diagnostic, Interventional and Pediatric RadiologyInselspital Bern, University of BernBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science DepartmentDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations