Advertisement

Japanese Journal of Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 330–334 | Cite as

Should the dose of contrast medium be determined solely on the basis of body weight regardless of the patient’s sex?

  • Junji TanakaEmail author
  • Eito Kozawa
  • Kaiji Inoue
  • Yasumasa Okamoto
  • Masahito Toya
  • Youichi Sato
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate prospectively the difference in contrast enhancement of liver parenchyma between male and female subjects when the total amount of contrast material is determined by the total body weight (TBW).

Materials and methods

Computed tomography of the abdomen was performed with a total amount of iodine of 597 ± 3.9 mg I/kg (mean ± SD) over a mean ± SD total injection time of 30 ± 0.26 s. Postcontrast attenuation during the portal venous phase was measured in the liver parenchyma, portal vein, and aorta. These values were summed for each and compared to those obtained before contrast injection. A total of 565 consecutive patients without a history of underlying liver/heart disease, including 297 male and 268 female subjects (age 16–92 years, mean 67 years) were scanned and analyzed using a two-tailed t-test.

Results

The difference between precontrast and the portal venous phase in the male subjects was 315.4 ± 40.5 HU (mean ± SD), and that in female subjects was 358.6 ± 44.8 HU. This difference was statistically significant (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The contrast enhancement in females was 13.7% higher than that in males when the amount of iodine administered was based on the TBW. The difference can presumably be attributed to the difference in fat and muscle components. This result suggests that the amount of contrast material used in females should be reduced according to this difference.

Key words

Computed tomography Contrast media Sexual dimorphism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. 1.
    Bae KT. Intravenous contrast medium administration and scan timing at CT: considerations and approaches. Radiology 2010;256:32–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yamashita Y, Komohara Y, Takahashi M, Uchida M, Hayabuchi N, Shimizu T, et al. Abdominal helical CT: evaluation of optimal doses of intravenous contrast material—a prospective randomized study. Radiology 2000;216:718–723.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bae KT. Peak contrast enhancement in CT and MRI angiography: when does it occur and why? Pharmacokinetic study in a porcine model. Radiology 2003;227:809–816.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Awai K, Hiraishi K, Hori S. Effect of contrast material injection duration and rate on aortic peak time and peak enhancement at dynamic CT involving injection protocol with dose tailored to patient weight. Radiology 2004;230:142–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ichikawa T, Erturk SM, Araki T. Multiphasic contrast-enhanced multidetector-row CT of liver: combination of fixed injection duration and patient’s body-weight-tailored dose of contrast material. Eur J Radiol 2006;58:165–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wells JCK. Sexual dimorphism of body composition. Best Pract Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007;21:415–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ho LM, Nelson RC, DeLong DM. Determining contrast medium dose and rate on basis of lean body weight: does this strategy improve patient-to patient uniformity of hepatic enhancement during multi-detector row CT? Radiology 2007;243:431–437.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hume R. Prediction of lean body mass from height and weight. J Clin Pathol 1966;19:389–391.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hallynck TH, Soep HH, Thomis JA, Boelaert J, Daneels R, Dettli L. Should clearance be normalised to body surface or to lean body mass? Br J Clin Pharmacol 1981;11:523–526.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Norgan NG. Body mass index and body energy stores in developing countries. Eur J Clin Nutr 1990;44(suppl): 79–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arfai K, Pitkcheewanont PD, Goran MI, Tavare CJ, Heller L, Gilsanz V. Bone, muscle, and fat: sex-related differences in prepubertal children. Radiology 2002;224:338–344.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pichard C, Kyle UG, Bracco D, Slosman DO, Morabia A, Schutz Y. Reference values of fat-free and fat masses by bioelectrical impedance analysis in 3393 healthy subjects. Nutrition 2000;16:245–254.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang Z, Heo M, Kotler DP, Withers RT, Heymsfield SB. Muscularity in adult humans: proportions of adipose tissue free body mass and skeletal muscle. Am J Hum Biol 2001;13:612–619.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kondo H, Kanematsu M, Goshima S, Tomita Y, Kim MJ, Moriyama N, et al. Body size indexes for optimizing iodine dose for aortic and hepatic enhancement at multidetector CT: comparison of total body weight, lean body weight, and blood volume. Radiology 2010;254:163–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yanaga Y, Awai K, Nakaura T, Oda S, Funama Y, Bae KT, et al. Effect of contrast injection protocols with dose adjusted to the estimated lean body weight on aortic enhancement at CT angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:1071–1078.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Radiological Society 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Junji Tanaka
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eito Kozawa
    • 1
  • Kaiji Inoue
    • 1
  • Yasumasa Okamoto
    • 1
  • Masahito Toya
    • 1
  • Youichi Sato
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologySaitama Medical University HospitalSaitamaJapan

Personalised recommendations