Contrast Material Injection Protocol With the Dose Determined According to Lean Body Weight at Hepatic Dynamic Computed Tomography: Comparison Among Patients With Different Body Mass Indices.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to compare enhancement of the aorta and liver on hepatic dynamic computed tomography scans acquired with contrast material doses based on the lean body weight (LBW) or the total body weight (TBW). METHODS We randomly divided 529 patients (279 men, 250 women; median age, 66 years) scheduled for hepatic dynamic computed tomography into 2 groups. The LBW patients (n = 278) were injected with 679 mg iodine/kg (men) or 762 mg iodine/kg (women). The TBW group (n = 251) was injected with 600 mg iodine/kg TBW. Each group was subdivided into the 3 classes based on the body mass index (BMI; low, normal, high). Aortic enhancement during the hepatic arterial phase and hepatic enhancement during the portal venous phase was compared. The aortic and hepatic equivalence margins were 100 and 20 Hounsfield units, respectively. RESULTS Comparison of the median iodine dose in patients with a normal or high BMI showed that it was significantly lower under the LBW protocol than the TBW protocol (558.2 and 507.0 mg iodine/kg, P < 0.001, respectively). However, in patients with a low BMI, the LBW protocol delivered a significantly higher dose than the TBW protocol (620.7 vs 600.0 mg iodine/kg, P < 0.001). The 95% confidence interval for the difference in aortic and hepatic enhancement between the 2 protocols was within the range of the predetermined equivalence margins in all BMI subgroups. CONCLUSIONS Contrast enhancement was equivalent under both protocols. The LBW protocol can avoid iodine overdosing, especially in patients with a high BMI.

[1]  J. Heiken,et al.  Dynamic incremental CT: effect of volume and concentration of contrast material and patient weight on hepatic enhancement. , 1995, Radiology.

[2]  J A Brink,et al.  Aortic and hepatic peak enhancement at CT: effect of contrast medium injection rate--pharmacokinetic analysis and experimental porcine model. , 1998, Radiology.

[3]  M. Haider,et al.  Multi-detector row helical CT in preoperative assessment of small (< or = 1.5 cm) liver metastases: is thinner collimation better? , 2002, Radiology.

[4]  Wade S. Smith,et al.  Incidence of contrast nephropathy from cerebral CT angiography and CT perfusion imaging , 2005, Neurology.

[5]  K. Bae,et al.  Scan and contrast administration principles of MDCT , 2005, European radiology.

[6]  D. Fleischmann.  How to design injection protocols for multiple detector-row CT angiography (MDCTA) , 2005, European radiology.

[7]  S. Pocock,et al.  Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. , 2006, JAMA.

[8]  D. Fleischmann.  CT angiography: injection and acquisition technique. , 2010, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[9]  Y. Yamashita,et al.  Optimal dose and injection duration (injection rate) of contrast material for depiction of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinomas by multidetector CT , 2007, Radiation Medicine.

[10]  J A Brink,et al.  Aortic and hepatic contrast medium enhancement at CT. Part I. Prediction with a computer model. , 1998, Radiology.

[11]  K. Awai,et al.  Effect of contrast material injection duration and rate on aortic peak time and peak enhancement at dynamic CT involving injection protocol with dose tailored to patient weight. , 2004, Radiology.

[12]  M. Kanematsu,et al.  Abdominal multidetector CT in patients with varying body fat percentages: estimation of optimal contrast material dose. , 2008, Radiology.

[13]  M Takahashi,et al.  Abdominal helical CT: evaluation of optimal doses of intravenous contrast material--a prospective randomized study. , 2000, Radiology.

[14]  R. Raupach,et al.  Effect of beam hardening on arterial enhancement in thoracoabdominal CT angiography with increasing patient size: an in vitro and in vivo study. , 2010, Radiology.

[15]  Y. Yamashita,et al.  Pancreas: patient body weight tailored contrast material injection protocol versus fixed dose protocol at dynamic CT. , 2007, Radiology.

[16]  Takeshi Nakaura,et al.  Optimal contrast dose for depiction of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma at dynamic CT using 64-MDCT. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  D. DeLong,et al.  Determining contrast medium dose and rate on basis of lean body weight: does this strategy improve patient-to-patient uniformity of hepatic enhancement during multi-detector row CT? , 2007, Radiology.

[18]  Y. Yamashita,et al.  The Optimal Body Size Index with Which to Determine Iodine Dose for Hepatic Dynamic CT: A Prospective Multicenter Study. , 2016, Radiology.

[19]  J A Brink,et al.  Aortic and hepatic contrast medium enhancement at CT. Part II. Effect of reduced cardiac output in a porcine model. , 1998, Radiology.

[20]  K. Bae.  Optimization of contrast enhancement in thoracic MDCT. , 2010, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[21]  K S Panageas,et al.  Statistical issues in analysis of diagnostic imaging experiments with multiple observations per patient. , 2001, Radiology.