Variation of the time to aortic enhancement of fixed-duration versus fixed-rate injection protocols

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. The objective of the study was to clarify whether a fixed-duration injection protocol is useful in determining the optimal scan delay time without the need for a bolus-tracking technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three hundred eighteen patients underwent a helical CT examination using a bolus-tracking technique. All the examinations were performed after administering a nonionic contrast medium (300 or 370 mg I/mL; 2 mL/kg of body weight for patients weighing ≤ 75 kg, 150 mL for those weighing > 75 kg). The patients were assigned to one of three groups according to the injection protocol. The injection rate was alternated to 3 or 4 mL/sec in group 1. The injection duration was 38 or 47 sec in groups 2 and 3, respectively. The aortic arrival time and the 100-H threshold time in each patient were measured. The mean values and the variations in the aortic arrival time and 100-H threshold time according to the injection protocols and the contrast media were compared.

RESULTS. The mean variations (± SD) of aortic arrival times and 100-H thresholds in group 2 (aortic arrival time = 16.1 ± 2.7 sec, 100-H threshold time = 19.6 ± 2.9 sec) were smaller than in groups 1 (16.3 ± 3.0 sec and 19.9 ± 3.7 sec, respectively) and 3 (16.8 ± 3.5 sec and 20.4 ± 4.1 sec, respectively). However, the range of aortic arrival times and 100-H threshold times was more than 10 sec for all groups. The mean aortic arrival time and 100-H threshold time for all patients were 16.5 and 20.0 sec, respectively, and did not vary significantly with the injection protocol and concentration of contrast medium.

CONCLUSION. The individual variations of the aortic arrival and 100-H threshold times can be reduced using a fixed-duration injection technique, but there are still substantial variations. Therefore, a bolus-tracking technique is recommended for optimal timing of arterial phase scanning.