An audit of the adequacy of contrast enhancement in CT pulmonary angiograms in a South African tertiary academic hospital setting

IF 0.7 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Derik J. Basson, H. Moodley
{"title":"An audit of the adequacy of contrast enhancement in CT pulmonary angiograms in a South African tertiary academic hospital setting","authors":"Derik J. Basson, H. Moodley","doi":"10.4102/sajr.v26i1.2350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Undiagnosed pulmonary embolism carries high mortality and morbidity. Computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) is the diagnostic method of choice for accurate diagnosis. Inadequate contrast opacification is the second most common cause of indeterminate CTPAs. Objectives Audit the adequacy of CTPA contrast enhancement and determine whether inadequate enhancement is affected by the size and site of the intravenous cannula, flow rate, contrast volume, contrast leakage and day shift versus after hours services. Method Retrospective and prospective audits of the adequacy of contrast enhancement of CTPAs at the Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital were conducted using the Royal College of Radiologists guidelines (≤ 11% of studies with < 210 HU). Protocol variables were collected prospectively from questionnaires completed by radiographers performing the CTPAs. Adequate versus inadequate groups were analysed. Results A total of 63 (retrospective) and 130 (prospective) patients were included with inadequate contrast enhancement rates of 19% (12/63) and 20.8% (27/130), respectively. The majority of CTPAs were performed during the day 56.2% (73/130) with a 20G cannula 66.2% (86/130) in the forearm 33.8% (44/130) injecting 100 mL – 120 mL contrast 43.1% (56/130) at 3 mL/s 63.1% (82/130). The median flow rate (3 mL/s) and contrast volume (80 mL) were identical in both adequate and inadequate groups, while the remaining variables showed no statistical difference. Conclusion The rate of inadequately enhanced CTPAs in this study was high. The protocol variables did not have a significant influence on the rate of inadequate enhancement. Further research, particularly using flow rates > 4 mL/s, is required for protocol optimisation.","PeriodicalId":43442,"journal":{"name":"SA Journal of Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SA Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/sajr.v26i1.2350","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background Undiagnosed pulmonary embolism carries high mortality and morbidity. Computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) is the diagnostic method of choice for accurate diagnosis. Inadequate contrast opacification is the second most common cause of indeterminate CTPAs. Objectives Audit the adequacy of CTPA contrast enhancement and determine whether inadequate enhancement is affected by the size and site of the intravenous cannula, flow rate, contrast volume, contrast leakage and day shift versus after hours services. Method Retrospective and prospective audits of the adequacy of contrast enhancement of CTPAs at the Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital were conducted using the Royal College of Radiologists guidelines (≤ 11% of studies with < 210 HU). Protocol variables were collected prospectively from questionnaires completed by radiographers performing the CTPAs. Adequate versus inadequate groups were analysed. Results A total of 63 (retrospective) and 130 (prospective) patients were included with inadequate contrast enhancement rates of 19% (12/63) and 20.8% (27/130), respectively. The majority of CTPAs were performed during the day 56.2% (73/130) with a 20G cannula 66.2% (86/130) in the forearm 33.8% (44/130) injecting 100 mL – 120 mL contrast 43.1% (56/130) at 3 mL/s 63.1% (82/130). The median flow rate (3 mL/s) and contrast volume (80 mL) were identical in both adequate and inadequate groups, while the remaining variables showed no statistical difference. Conclusion The rate of inadequately enhanced CTPAs in this study was high. The protocol variables did not have a significant influence on the rate of inadequate enhancement. Further research, particularly using flow rates > 4 mL/s, is required for protocol optimisation.
在南非三级学术医院设置的CT肺血管造影增强的充分性审计
背景:未确诊的肺栓塞具有很高的死亡率和发病率。计算机断层肺血管造影(CTPA)是准确诊断的首选诊断方法。造影剂混浊不充分是ctpa不确定的第二大常见原因。目的审核CTPA造影增强的充分性,确定造影增强的充分性是否受到静脉插管的大小和位置、流量、造影剂体积、造影剂泄漏以及白班与非工作时间服务的影响。方法采用皇家放射科学院指南对Charlotte Maxeke约翰内斯堡学术医院ctpa造影剂增强的充分性进行回顾性和前瞻性审计(≤11% < 210 HU的研究)。从执行ctpa的放射技师完成的问卷中前瞻性地收集方案变量。分析了适当组和不适当组。结果共纳入63例(回顾性)和130例(前瞻性)患者,增强率分别为19%(12/63)和20.8%(27/130)。大多数ctpa在白天进行56.2% (73/130),20G插管66.2%(86/130),前臂33.8%(44/130),注射100 mL - 120 mL,对比43.1%(56/130),注射3 mL/s 63.1%(82/130)。充足组和不足组的中位流速(3 mL/s)和造影剂体积(80 mL)相同,其余变量无统计学差异。结论本研究CTPAs增强不充分的发生率较高。方案变量对增强不足率没有显著影响。方案优化需要进一步的研究,特别是使用流量为4ml /s的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
SA Journal of Radiology
SA Journal of Radiology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
35
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The SA Journal of Radiology is the official journal of the Radiological Society of South Africa and the Professional Association of Radiologists in South Africa and Namibia. The SA Journal of Radiology is a general diagnostic radiological journal which carries original research and review articles, pictorial essays, case reports, letters, editorials, radiological practice and other radiological articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信