AJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dorio, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Shock, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dorio, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Shock, S. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?

Using a Saline Chaser to Decrease Contrast Media in Abdominal CT

Paul J. Dorio1, Fred T. Lee, Jr., Kevin P. Henseler, Mark Pilot, Myron A. Pozniak, Thomas C. Winter, III and Sarah A. Shock

1 All authors: Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin Hospital & Clinics, 600 Highland Ave., Madison, WI 53792-3252.



View larger version (116K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. —46-year-old man with lung cancer. CT scan shows contrast material pooling in central veins after injection of 150 mL of contrast material. Residual contrast material also remains in left brachiocephalic vein (arrow). This contrast material is functionally wasted for purposes of enhancing abdominal organs and vasculature.

 


View larger version (148K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. —Contrast material injector. Photograph shows initial position of power injector after loading both saline (s) and contrast material (c). Distinct layering effect occurs because of density differences between materials.

 


View larger version (26K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. —Graph shows average lesion conspicuity (mean liver attenuation minus mean metastatic lesion attenuation) for each patient after injection of 100 mL of contrast material with 50 mL saline chaser ({blacksquare}) and after injection of 150 mL of contrast material (•).

 


View larger version (156K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4A. —71-year-old man with neuroendocrine cancer. CT scan shows liver and tumor enhancement (metastases, arrows) after injection of 100 mL of contrast material and 50 mL of saline chaser. Mean liver attenuation = 84.7 H; mean tumor attenuation = 19.3 H; liver-to-lesion difference = 65.4 H.

 


View larger version (162K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4B. —71-year-old man with neuroendocrine cancer. CT scan shows liver and tumor enhancement (metastases, arrows) after injection of 150 mL of contrast material with injection parameters identical to those used for A. Mean liver attenuation = 89.8 H; mean tumor attenuation = 29.9 H; liver-to-lesion difference = 59.9. No difference in lesion conspicuity is seen compared with Figure 1A, despite slightly improved liver enhancement, because of simultaneous increase in tumor attenuation.

 


View larger version (122K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5A. —74-year-old woman with lung cancer. CT scan shows enhancement of spleen (155.8 H), renal cortex (188.1 H), and aorta (232.0 H) after injection of 150 mL of contrast material.

 


View larger version (122K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5B. —74-year-old woman with lung cancer. CT scan shows enhancement of spleen, renal cortex, and aorta after injection of 100 mL of contrast material and 50 mL of saline chaser with injection parameters identical to those used for A. Spleen (140.5 H), renal cortex (170.6 H), and aorta (187.8 H) are all slightly less enhanced compared with A. Decreased enhancement obtained with 100 mL of contrast material and chaser is generally not clinically important in patients with cancer, because metastases to spleen and kidney are relatively rare compared with hepatic metastases.

 

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



HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.