This poster is published under an
open license. Please read the
disclaimer for further details.
Keywords:
Computer applications, CT, Contrast agent-intravenous, Quality assurance
Authors:
M. Millor Muruzábal, P. García-Barquín, J. Etxano, P. Slon, I. Gonzalez Crespo, D. Cano, I. Vivas Perez; Pamplona/ES
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2015/C-1372
Results
Contrast dose
Contrast dose used in group A was higher (120 ml) than in group B (109.3 ml) (SD 16.9),
reducing an average of 10.7 ml of contrast medium.
After statistical analysis,
significant differences were found between both groups (p = 0.001). Fig. 14
Stratifying according to the weight: In group B,
patients weighing <80 kg decrease significantly the contrast dose 19.2 ml (the contrast average dose in group A was 120 ml and in group B 100.8 ml (SD 11.9)) (p = 0.001),
while patients weighing ≥80 kg increased significantly 10.5 ml (the contrast average dose in group A was 120 ml and in group B was 130.5 ml (SD 4.2)) (p = 0.001). Fig. 15
SNR and CNR values
SNR and CNR values in group B were lower than in group A.
However,
after statistical analysis,
we did not find significant differences neither in SNR nor in CNR between both studies.
Study B 19.7 (SD 3.7) and 13.2 (SD 3.2) and study A 20.4 (SD 4.9) and 13.9 (SD 3.8) (p = 0.22 and 0.08). Fig. 16
Stratifying by weight: In patients weighing <80 kg,
in group B were 20.5 (SD 3.7) and 13.7 (SD 3.3),
while in group A was 22.0 (SD 4.6) and 14.9 (SD 3.7) (p = 0.007 and 0.014).
In patients weighing ≥80 kg,
in group B was 17.5 (SD 2.9) and 11.9 (SD 2.5) and in group A were 16.5 (SD 3.2) and 11.3 (SD 2.9) (p = 0.056 and 0.098). Fig. 17
Imaging quality
Finally,
subjective evaluation demonstrated no differences in imaging quality between studies performed with fixed contrast dose and studies performed with a contrast dose calculated according to weight (P3T system). Fig. 18