HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Okada, M. Articles by Hosono, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Okada, M. Articles by Hosono, M. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Comparison Between One-Route and Two-Route Injection for Liver and Aortic Enhancement Using MDCT

¹ Department of Radiology, Kinki University School of Medicine, 377-2 Ohno-Higashi, Osaka-Sayama, Osaka 589-8511, Japan.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to evaluate whether simultaneous injection into cubital veins bilaterally at one half of the standard injection rate achieves similar hepatic and aortic enhancement on MDCT as the conventional injection rate into a single cubital vein.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Thirty-two patients underwent multiphase MDCT because they were suspected of having a hepatic tumor. Patients were assigned to one of the following two groups: group A, 100 mL of 370 mg I/mL of contrast medium injected into a unilateral cubital vein (one-route) via a 20-gauge cannula at a rate of 4 mL/s; or group B, 50 mL of contrast medium injected into the cubital veins bilaterally (two-route) via 24-gauge cannulas at 2 mL/s. Peak contrast enhancement of the liver and abdominal aorta for groups A and B was measured using regions of interest and compared; arrival time of the contrast media was also compared using a bolus-tracking system. Analysis was performed using Wilcoxon's signed rank test.

RESULTS. Peak aortic enhancement of groups A and B was 367 ± 67 H and 361 ± 113 H (p = 0.61, not significant), respectively, and peak hepatic enhancement of groups A and B was 56 ± 11 H and 56 ± 16 H (p = 0.88, not significant), respectively. Mean arrival time to the aorta of group B (19.4 ± 3.4 seconds) was significantly later compared with that of group A (15.5 ± 3.5 seconds) (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION. The slower two-route injection produced the same aortic and hepatic enhancement as the faster one-route method with faster injection, but the arrival time of the contrast medium was later using the two-route method.

Keywords: contrast medium • injection protocol • liver • MDCT • two-route injection

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?