de Monyé Cécile, Cademartiri Filippo, de Weert Thomas T, Siepman Dorine A M, Dippel Diederik W J, van Der Lugt Aad
Department of Radiology, Erasmus Medical Center, 3015 GD Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Radiology. 2005 Nov;237(2):555-62. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2372040653. Epub 2005 Sep 16.
To prospectively compare different volumes of intravenously administered contrast material with and without a bolus chaser at 16-detector row computed tomographic (CT) angiography of the carotid arteries.
Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent were obtained. Seventy-five consecutive patients (44 men, 31 women; mean age, 63 years; range, 22-85 years) were allocated to one of three protocols: group 1, 80 mL of contrast material; group 2, 80 mL of contrast material followed by 40 mL of saline; and group 3, 60 mL of contrast material followed by 40 mL of saline. Bolus tracking was used to synchronize contrast material injection with CT scanning. The attenuation in Hounsfield units was measured from the ascending aorta to the intracranial arteries at 1-second intervals. Differences were tested with the Student t test.
The maximum attenuation was reached in the proximal internal carotid artery in all groups. The addition of a bolus chaser to 80-mL contrast material resulted in a higher mean attenuation (323 HU +/- 39 vs 351 HU +/- 60, P = .06), higher maximum attenuation (393 HU +/- 53 vs 425 HU +/- 76, P = .09), and higher minimum attenuation (240 HU +/- 34 vs 264 HU +/- 48, P < .05). Group 3 had lower mean, maximum, and minimum attenuation than did groups 1 and 2 (P < .001).
The addition of a bolus chaser to 80 mL of contrast material results in a slightly higher attenuation. Decreasing the volume of contrast material from 80 to 60 mL results in a significantly lower attenuation.
前瞻性比较在16排螺旋计算机断层扫描(CT)颈动脉血管造影中,静脉注射不同剂量对比剂并联合或不联合团注追注法的效果。
获得机构审查委员会批准并取得患者知情同意。75例连续患者(44例男性,31例女性;平均年龄63岁;年龄范围22 - 85岁)被分配至三种方案之一:第1组,80毫升对比剂;第2组,80毫升对比剂后接40毫升生理盐水;第3组,60毫升对比剂后接40毫升生理盐水。采用团注追踪法使对比剂注射与CT扫描同步。以1秒间隔测量从升主动脉至颅内动脉的亨氏单位衰减值。采用Student t检验进行差异检验。
所有组在颈内动脉近端均达到最大衰减值。80毫升对比剂联合团注追注法导致更高的平均衰减值(323 HU ± 39 vs 351 HU ± 60,P = 0.06)、更高的最大衰减值(393 HU ± 53 vs 425 HU ± 76,P = 0.09)以及更高的最小衰减值(240 HU ± 34 vs 264 HU ± 48,P < 0.05)。第3组的平均、最大和最小衰减值低于第1组和第2组(P < 0.001)。
80毫升对比剂联合团注追注法导致稍高的衰减值。将对比剂剂量从80毫升降至60毫升导致显著更低的衰减值。