Cargando…

64-Slice CT angiography of the abdominal aorta and abdominal arteries: comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of iobitridol 350 mgI/ml versus iomeprol 400 mgI/ml in a prospective, randomised, double-blind multi-centre trial

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of iodine concentration on diagnostic efficacy in multi-detector-row computed tomography (MDCT) angiography of the abdominal aorta and abdominal arteries. METHODS: IRB approval and informed consent were obtained. In this double-blind tri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Loewe, Christian, Becker, Christoph R., Berletti, Riccardo, Cametti, Carlo Alberto, Caudron, Jerome, Coudyzer, Walter, De Mey, Johan, Favat, Massimo, Heautot, Jean-François, Heye, Sam, Hittinger, Markus, Larralde, Antoine, Lestrat, Jean-Pierre, Marangoni, Roberto, Nieboer, Koenraad, Reimer, Peter, Schwarz, Martin, Schernthaner, Melanie, Lammer, Johannes
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2822224/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19789884
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1600-6
_version_ 1782177503767429120
author Loewe, Christian
Becker, Christoph R.
Berletti, Riccardo
Cametti, Carlo Alberto
Caudron, Jerome
Coudyzer, Walter
De Mey, Johan
Favat, Massimo
Heautot, Jean-François
Heye, Sam
Hittinger, Markus
Larralde, Antoine
Lestrat, Jean-Pierre
Marangoni, Roberto
Nieboer, Koenraad
Reimer, Peter
Schwarz, Martin
Schernthaner, Melanie
Lammer, Johannes
author_facet Loewe, Christian
Becker, Christoph R.
Berletti, Riccardo
Cametti, Carlo Alberto
Caudron, Jerome
Coudyzer, Walter
De Mey, Johan
Favat, Massimo
Heautot, Jean-François
Heye, Sam
Hittinger, Markus
Larralde, Antoine
Lestrat, Jean-Pierre
Marangoni, Roberto
Nieboer, Koenraad
Reimer, Peter
Schwarz, Martin
Schernthaner, Melanie
Lammer, Johannes
author_sort Loewe, Christian
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of iodine concentration on diagnostic efficacy in multi-detector-row computed tomography (MDCT) angiography of the abdominal aorta and abdominal arteries. METHODS: IRB approval and informed consent were obtained. In this double-blind trial, patients were randomised to undergo MDCT angiography of the abdominal arteries during administration of iobitridol (350 mgI/ml) or iomeprol (400 mgI/ml). Each centre applied its own technique for delivery of contrast medium, regardless of iodine concentration. Diagnostic efficacy, image quality, visualisation of the arterial wall and arterial enhancement were evaluated. A total of 153 patients received iobitridol and 154 received iomeprol. RESULTS: The ability to reach a diagnosis was “satisfactory” to “totally satisfactory” in 152 (99.3%) and 153 (99.4%) patients respectively. Image quality was rated as being “good” to “excellent” in 94.7 and 94.8% segments respectively. Similar results were observed for image quality of arterial walls (84.3 vs. 83.2%). The mean relative changes in arterial enhancement between baseline and arterial phase images showed no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the non-inferiority of the 350 versus 400 mgI/ml iodine concentration, in terms of diagnostic efficacy, in abdominal MDCT angiography. It also confirmed the high robustness and reliability of this technique across multi-national practices.
format Text
id pubmed-2822224
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28222242010-02-25 64-Slice CT angiography of the abdominal aorta and abdominal arteries: comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of iobitridol 350 mgI/ml versus iomeprol 400 mgI/ml in a prospective, randomised, double-blind multi-centre trial Loewe, Christian Becker, Christoph R. Berletti, Riccardo Cametti, Carlo Alberto Caudron, Jerome Coudyzer, Walter De Mey, Johan Favat, Massimo Heautot, Jean-François Heye, Sam Hittinger, Markus Larralde, Antoine Lestrat, Jean-Pierre Marangoni, Roberto Nieboer, Koenraad Reimer, Peter Schwarz, Martin Schernthaner, Melanie Lammer, Johannes Eur Radiol Computed Tomography PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of iodine concentration on diagnostic efficacy in multi-detector-row computed tomography (MDCT) angiography of the abdominal aorta and abdominal arteries. METHODS: IRB approval and informed consent were obtained. In this double-blind trial, patients were randomised to undergo MDCT angiography of the abdominal arteries during administration of iobitridol (350 mgI/ml) or iomeprol (400 mgI/ml). Each centre applied its own technique for delivery of contrast medium, regardless of iodine concentration. Diagnostic efficacy, image quality, visualisation of the arterial wall and arterial enhancement were evaluated. A total of 153 patients received iobitridol and 154 received iomeprol. RESULTS: The ability to reach a diagnosis was “satisfactory” to “totally satisfactory” in 152 (99.3%) and 153 (99.4%) patients respectively. Image quality was rated as being “good” to “excellent” in 94.7 and 94.8% segments respectively. Similar results were observed for image quality of arterial walls (84.3 vs. 83.2%). The mean relative changes in arterial enhancement between baseline and arterial phase images showed no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the non-inferiority of the 350 versus 400 mgI/ml iodine concentration, in terms of diagnostic efficacy, in abdominal MDCT angiography. It also confirmed the high robustness and reliability of this technique across multi-national practices. Springer-Verlag 2009-09-30 2010 /pmc/articles/PMC2822224/ /pubmed/19789884 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1600-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2009 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
spellingShingle Computed Tomography
Loewe, Christian
Becker, Christoph R.
Berletti, Riccardo
Cametti, Carlo Alberto
Caudron, Jerome
Coudyzer, Walter
De Mey, Johan
Favat, Massimo
Heautot, Jean-François
Heye, Sam
Hittinger, Markus
Larralde, Antoine
Lestrat, Jean-Pierre
Marangoni, Roberto
Nieboer, Koenraad
Reimer, Peter
Schwarz, Martin
Schernthaner, Melanie
Lammer, Johannes
64-Slice CT angiography of the abdominal aorta and abdominal arteries: comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of iobitridol 350 mgI/ml versus iomeprol 400 mgI/ml in a prospective, randomised, double-blind multi-centre trial
title 64-Slice CT angiography of the abdominal aorta and abdominal arteries: comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of iobitridol 350 mgI/ml versus iomeprol 400 mgI/ml in a prospective, randomised, double-blind multi-centre trial
title_full 64-Slice CT angiography of the abdominal aorta and abdominal arteries: comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of iobitridol 350 mgI/ml versus iomeprol 400 mgI/ml in a prospective, randomised, double-blind multi-centre trial
title_fullStr 64-Slice CT angiography of the abdominal aorta and abdominal arteries: comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of iobitridol 350 mgI/ml versus iomeprol 400 mgI/ml in a prospective, randomised, double-blind multi-centre trial
title_full_unstemmed 64-Slice CT angiography of the abdominal aorta and abdominal arteries: comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of iobitridol 350 mgI/ml versus iomeprol 400 mgI/ml in a prospective, randomised, double-blind multi-centre trial
title_short 64-Slice CT angiography of the abdominal aorta and abdominal arteries: comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of iobitridol 350 mgI/ml versus iomeprol 400 mgI/ml in a prospective, randomised, double-blind multi-centre trial
title_sort 64-slice ct angiography of the abdominal aorta and abdominal arteries: comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of iobitridol 350 mgi/ml versus iomeprol 400 mgi/ml in a prospective, randomised, double-blind multi-centre trial
topic Computed Tomography
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2822224/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19789884
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1600-6
work_keys_str_mv AT loewechristian 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT beckerchristophr 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT berlettiriccardo 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT cametticarloalberto 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT caudronjerome 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT coudyzerwalter 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT demeyjohan 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT favatmassimo 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT heautotjeanfrancois 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT heyesam 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT hittingermarkus 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT larraldeantoine 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT lestratjeanpierre 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT marangoniroberto 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT nieboerkoenraad 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT reimerpeter 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT schwarzmartin 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT schernthanermelanie 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial
AT lammerjohannes 64slicectangiographyoftheabdominalaortaandabdominalarteriescomparisonofthediagnosticefficacyofiobitridol350mgimlversusiomeprol400mgimlinaprospectiverandomiseddoubleblindmulticentretrial