Department of Abdominal Imaging and Intervention, Massachusetts General Hospital Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
J Am Coll Radiol. 2012 Aug;9(8):578-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2012.04.007.
The purpose of this study was to compare enhancement quality, performance efficiency, technologists' satisfaction, and operation costs between 2 different power injectors (PIs) in an outpatient setting.
In this prospective study, 275 consecutive outpatients (135 men, 140 women) scheduled for contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) were randomized and scanned using either of 2 multidetector CT scanners (16 adjacently placed detectors) fitted with a dual-syringe contrast injector or a syringeless contrast injector. The corresponding CECT studies were subjectively reviewed by 2 radiologists in consensus to rate the quality of contrast enhancement in each study. The equipment preparation time (contrast media [CM], saline loading), releasing time (unloading of saline and CM), and CM wastage incurred for each PI were recorded by one operator. Technologists' satisfaction with the use of the PIs was rated on a 10-point scale. Statistical analyses were performed using Student's t tests.
A total of 140 patients were examined using the dual-syringe system, and 135 with the syringeless system, and CECT examination quality was comparable for both PI systems (P > .05). Equipment preparation time and releasing time per examination for dual-syringe and syringeless PIs were 139 ± 39 and 32 ± 14 seconds and 48 ± 31 and 8 ± 3 seconds, respectively (P < .001). On average, 11 mL CM wastage per examination was observed with the dual-syringe PI and 0 mL with the syringeless PI (P < .001). Technologists had higher satisfaction with the syringeless PI than the dual-syringe system (9.3 vs 6.3, P < .01). Because of improved efficiency, 2.6 additional patients per day were examined in the room using the syringeless PI.
Given comparable CECT examination quality, the syringeless PI was more user-friendly and improved outpatient CT workflow and CT throughput while allowing 11-mL CM saving per examination compared with the dual-syringe injector.
本研究旨在比较两种不同的（Power injector，PI）在门诊环境下的增强质量、性能效率、技师满意度和运营成本。
在这项前瞻性研究中，275 例连续门诊患者（135 例男性，140 例女性）被随机分配到配备双注射器造影注射器或无针造影注射器的两台多排 CT 扫描仪（16 个相邻探测器）进行对比增强 CT（CECT）扫描。两名放射科医生对相应的 CECT 研究进行了主观回顾，以对每项研究的对比增强质量进行评分。一位操作人员记录了每次 PI 所涉及的设备准备时间（造影剂[CM]、盐水加载）、释放时间（盐水和 CM 的卸载）和 CM 浪费。技师对 PI 使用的满意度以 10 分制评分。采用 Student's t 检验进行统计学分析。
共有 140 例患者接受了双注射器系统检查，135 例患者接受了无针系统检查，两种 PI 系统的 CECT 检查质量相当（P＞.05）。双注射器和无针 PI 的设备准备时间和每次检查的释放时间分别为 139 ± 39 和 32 ± 14 秒和 48 ± 31 和 8 ± 3 秒（P＜.001）。平均而言，双注射器 PI 每次检查有 11mL CM 浪费，而无针 PI 每次检查无 CM 浪费（P＜.001）。与双注射器系统相比，技师对无针 PI 的满意度更高（9.3 分 vs 6.3 分，P＜.01）。由于效率提高，使用无针 PI 时，每天可在该房间多检查 2.6 例患者。
在 CECT 检查质量相当的情况下，与双注射器 PI 相比，无针 PI 更便于用户使用，改善了门诊 CT 工作流程和 CT 吞吐量，同时每次检查可节省 11mL CM。
