Radiology, Vol 209, 787-792, Copyright © 1998 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Helical liver CT with computer-assisted bolus-tracking technology: is it possible to predict which patients will not achieve a threshold of enhancement?

EK Paulson, AJ Fisher, DM DeLong, DD Parker and RC Nelson
Department Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.

PURPOSE: To determine how often a prescribed threshold of hepatic contrast material enhancement is not reached at helical computed tomography (CT) of the liver in patients in a tertiary teaching hospital-based practice and which variables are predictive of failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hepatic helical CT was performed in 250 consecutive patients with computer-assisted bolus-tracking technology after either mechanical injection at 3 mL/sec (n = 177) or manual injection (n = 73) of 150 mL of iopamidol. Demographic variables were recorded. After 17 seconds, low-milliamperage monitoring scans were obtained every 6 seconds until hepatic enhancement of 50 HU over baseline was achieved. Time-enhancement curves were reviewed. RESULTS: The threshold was not reached by 60 seconds in 88 patients (35%; default group). The success and default groups were similar in most variables and differed only in weight (P = .002), patient status (inpatient, outpatient, or emergency department; P < .001), and injection type (mechanical vs manual; P < .001). Ten patients (4%) did not achieve the threshold because of inappropriate placement of elliptic regions of interest. CONCLUSION: By using computer-assisted bolus-tracking technology, 35% of patients in a tertiary teaching hospital-based practice will not achieve a threshold of 50 HU above baseline by 60 seconds after injection initiation and will require the use of a set delay. Failures are more frequent in patients who are heavy and in inpatients. No historic or demographic factors are strongly predictive of failure.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. L. Chu, B. N. Joe, A. C. A. Westphalen, E. M. Webb, F. V. Coakley, and B. M. Yeh Patient-specific Time to Peak Abdominal Organ Enhancement Varies with Time to Peak Aortic Enhancement at MR Imaging Radiology, December 1, 2007; 245(3): 779 - 787. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. K. Hussain, F. J. Londy, I. R. Francis, H. V. Nghiem, W. J. Weadock, A. Gebremariam, and T. L. Chenevert Hepatic Arterial Phase MR Imaging with Automated Bolus-Detection Three-dimensional Fast Gradient-Recalled-Echo Sequence: Comparison with Test-Bolus Method Radiology, February 1, 2003; 226(2): 558 - 566. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Ichikawa, T. Kitamura, H. Nakajima, H. Sou, T. Tsukamoto, S. Ikenaga, and T. Araki Hypervascular Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Can Double Arterial Phase Imaging with Multidetector CT Improve Tumor Depiction in the Cirrhotic Liver? Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2002; 179(3): 751 - 758. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. J. Megibow, G. Jacob, J. P. Heiken, E. K. Paulson, K. D. Hopper, G. Sica, S. Saini, B. A. Birnbaum, R. Redvanley, and E. K. Fishman Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Volume of Low Osmolality Contrast Medium Needed for Routine Helical Abdominal CT Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2001; 176(3): 583 - 589. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. T. Sica, H. Ji, and P. R. Ros CT and MR Imaging of Hepatic Metastases Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2000; 174(3): 691 - 698. [Full Text] [PDF]