Cargando…
Split vs. Single Bolus CT Urography: Comparison of Scan Time, Image Quality and Radiation Dose
The purpose of this study was to compare the scan time, image quality and radiation dose of CT urograms (CTU) using a split vs. single bolus contrast media injection technique. A total of 241 consecutive CTUs performed between August 2019-February 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. There were three...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8163005/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34065266 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/tomography7020019 |
_version_ | 1783700819314475008 |
---|---|
author | Morrison, Nicole Bryden, Sherrie Costa, Andreu F. |
author_facet | Morrison, Nicole Bryden, Sherrie Costa, Andreu F. |
author_sort | Morrison, Nicole |
collection | PubMed |
description | The purpose of this study was to compare the scan time, image quality and radiation dose of CT urograms (CTU) using a split vs. single bolus contrast media injection technique. A total of 241 consecutive CTUs performed between August 2019-February 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. There were three study groups: Group 1, <50 years old, 50/80 cc split-bolus administered at 0 and 700 s post initiation of injection, with combined nephrographic and excretory phases; group 2, ≥50 years old, same split-bolus protocol; and group 3, ≥50 years old, 130 cc single bolus injection, with nephrographic and excretory phases acquired at 100 s and 460 s post injection initiation. The recorded data elements were scan time, number of excretory phases, imaging quality based on opacification of the urinary collecting system (<50%, 50–75%, 75–100%), and dose-length product (DLP). Associations between group and categorical variables were assessed (Chi-square); mean scan time and DLP were compared (one-way ANOVA). Following analysis, proportionally fewer CTUs required a repeat excretory phase in group 3 (32/112, 28.6%) than in groups 1 (25/48, 52.1%) and 2 (37/80, 46.3%) (p = 0.006). Mean scan time was significantly lower in group 3 (678 s) than in groups 1 (1046 s) and 2 (978 s) (p < 0.0001). There was no association between groups and image quality (p = 0.13). DLP was higher in group 3 (1422 ± 837 mGy·cm) than in groups 1 (1041 ± 531 mGy·cm) and 2 (1137 ± 646 mGy·cm) (p = 0.003). In conclusion, single bolus CTU resulted in significantly fewer repeat phases and faster scan time at the expense of a slightly higher radiation dose. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8163005 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81630052021-05-29 Split vs. Single Bolus CT Urography: Comparison of Scan Time, Image Quality and Radiation Dose Morrison, Nicole Bryden, Sherrie Costa, Andreu F. Tomography Article The purpose of this study was to compare the scan time, image quality and radiation dose of CT urograms (CTU) using a split vs. single bolus contrast media injection technique. A total of 241 consecutive CTUs performed between August 2019-February 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. There were three study groups: Group 1, <50 years old, 50/80 cc split-bolus administered at 0 and 700 s post initiation of injection, with combined nephrographic and excretory phases; group 2, ≥50 years old, same split-bolus protocol; and group 3, ≥50 years old, 130 cc single bolus injection, with nephrographic and excretory phases acquired at 100 s and 460 s post injection initiation. The recorded data elements were scan time, number of excretory phases, imaging quality based on opacification of the urinary collecting system (<50%, 50–75%, 75–100%), and dose-length product (DLP). Associations between group and categorical variables were assessed (Chi-square); mean scan time and DLP were compared (one-way ANOVA). Following analysis, proportionally fewer CTUs required a repeat excretory phase in group 3 (32/112, 28.6%) than in groups 1 (25/48, 52.1%) and 2 (37/80, 46.3%) (p = 0.006). Mean scan time was significantly lower in group 3 (678 s) than in groups 1 (1046 s) and 2 (978 s) (p < 0.0001). There was no association between groups and image quality (p = 0.13). DLP was higher in group 3 (1422 ± 837 mGy·cm) than in groups 1 (1041 ± 531 mGy·cm) and 2 (1137 ± 646 mGy·cm) (p = 0.003). In conclusion, single bolus CTU resulted in significantly fewer repeat phases and faster scan time at the expense of a slightly higher radiation dose. MDPI 2021-05-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8163005/ /pubmed/34065266 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/tomography7020019 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Morrison, Nicole Bryden, Sherrie Costa, Andreu F. Split vs. Single Bolus CT Urography: Comparison of Scan Time, Image Quality and Radiation Dose |
title | Split vs. Single Bolus CT Urography: Comparison of Scan Time, Image Quality and Radiation Dose |
title_full | Split vs. Single Bolus CT Urography: Comparison of Scan Time, Image Quality and Radiation Dose |
title_fullStr | Split vs. Single Bolus CT Urography: Comparison of Scan Time, Image Quality and Radiation Dose |
title_full_unstemmed | Split vs. Single Bolus CT Urography: Comparison of Scan Time, Image Quality and Radiation Dose |
title_short | Split vs. Single Bolus CT Urography: Comparison of Scan Time, Image Quality and Radiation Dose |
title_sort | split vs. single bolus ct urography: comparison of scan time, image quality and radiation dose |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8163005/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34065266 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/tomography7020019 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT morrisonnicole splitvssingleboluscturographycomparisonofscantimeimagequalityandradiationdose AT brydensherrie splitvssingleboluscturographycomparisonofscantimeimagequalityandradiationdose AT costaandreuf splitvssingleboluscturographycomparisonofscantimeimagequalityandradiationdose |