Keywords:
Diagnostic or prognostic study, Retrospective, Outcomes, Venous access, Contrast agent-intravenous, Complications, CT, Vascular, Professional issues, Contrast agents, Professional Issues, Performed at one institution
Authors:
M. S. K. Teo, O. W. L. Low, V. S. PONNALAGU, C. Ong, S. R. Naini; Singapore/SG
DOI:
10.26044/ecr2020/C-00938
Methods and materials
Our hospital is a tertiary hospital for adult patients. All contrast enhanced CTs were performed with power injectors.
All cases of CME from January to December 2017 were reviewed retrospectively.
Single and multi-phase CTs were performed with an injection rate of 1.5 ml/s.
CT aortogram, CT angiogram and CT enteroclysis were performed with an injection rate of 3.0 ml/s.
CT venogram was performed with an injection rate of 1.0 ml/s.
Patient demographic data (age, in-patient or out-patient) and CT scan details (type of study, rate of injection) were collected. Other data such as volume of extravasated contrast and reasons for extravasation were also collected.
The proportion of CME with injection rate of 3.0 ml/s was compared with 1.5 ml/s, using the Fisher Exact Test. One case of CME occurred with injection rate of 1.0 ml/s and this was excluded from the analysis.
