Ben J A Janssen, Frank M Zijta, Natasja Fraters, Ad de Man, Sandra Malagon, Saba Rafi, Henrius P Raat, Ankie Hersbach, Joachim E Wildberger, Estelle C Nijssen
{"title":"布设尿液收集袋对废水中对比物质负荷的影响。","authors":"Ben J A Janssen, Frank M Zijta, Natasja Fraters, Ad de Man, Sandra Malagon, Saba Rafi, Henrius P Raat, Ankie Hersbach, Joachim E Wildberger, Estelle C Nijssen","doi":"10.1007/s00330-025-11984-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Contrast materials (CM) are ubiquitous in modern clinical practice. Metabolically inert and excreted in urine, treatment plants (WWTP) have difficulty removing CM from wastewater and CM increasingly emerge as environmental contaminants. This study evaluates the effect of urine-collection bag (UCB) distribution on corresponding CM load in WWTP influent.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This prospective observational multicenter study includes patients scheduled for contrast-material-enhanced computed tomography (iodine-CM) or magnetic resonance imaging (gadolinium-CM) at an academic and a regional hospital. At each centre, data were collected over a 3-week control-period and a 3-week intervention-period with standard-clinical-care UCB distribution (4pp). Control and intervention were compared for cumulative iodine- and gadolinium-CM-loads in WWTP influent using linear regression analysis, corrected for administered CM. Compliance was evaluated in interviews with consenting patients; results were used to estimate achievable UCB-distribution effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>UCB were distributed to 69.1% (1188/1719) eligible patients, and had a statistically significant effect on WWTP influent CM-loads: intervention versus control -17.4% iopromide [F(1,37) = 54.7, p < 0.001, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.60; R<sup>2</sup> = 0.966]; -14.8% ioversol [F(1,37) = 154.5, p < 0.001, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.82; R<sup>2</sup> = 0.989]; -7.2% gadolinium at the academic hospital [F(1,37) = 43.3, p < 0.001, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.54, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.967]; -33.2% gadolinium at the regional hospital [F(1,37) = 1.13, p = 0.296, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.03]. Interviews were conducted with 47.0% (558/1188) patients: 92.1% (514/558) reported using UCB, and they used 89.2% (1834/2056) of the UCB they were provided with. Compliance-based estimates were: achievable compliance 29.9% to 43.6%, interceptable CM 26.7% to 38.9%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>UCB distribution had a significant but small impact on reducing wastewater CM-loads. Compliance data overestimate UCB-distribution effect, which underscores the importance of wastewater measurements when evaluating mitigation strategies.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Contrast materials (CM) increasingly emerge as environmental contaminants; because treatment plants are currently unable to remove CM from wastewater, the effects of urine-collection-bag distribution are evaluated. Findings Standard-care urine-collection-bag distribution after CT and MRI led to small but significant CM-load reductions in wastewater; compliance data, however, led to sizeable overestimation of (achievable) effects. Clinical relevance Urine-collection bag distribution had a significant but small impact on reducing contrast materials in wastewater. Most studies only include compliance data, but results show these overestimate impact, underscoring the importance of contrast-load measurements when evaluating mitigation strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of distributing urine-collection bags on contrast-material load in wastewater.\",\"authors\":\"Ben J A Janssen, Frank M Zijta, Natasja Fraters, Ad de Man, Sandra Malagon, Saba Rafi, Henrius P Raat, Ankie Hersbach, Joachim E Wildberger, Estelle C Nijssen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00330-025-11984-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Contrast materials (CM) are ubiquitous in modern clinical practice. Metabolically inert and excreted in urine, treatment plants (WWTP) have difficulty removing CM from wastewater and CM increasingly emerge as environmental contaminants. This study evaluates the effect of urine-collection bag (UCB) distribution on corresponding CM load in WWTP influent.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This prospective observational multicenter study includes patients scheduled for contrast-material-enhanced computed tomography (iodine-CM) or magnetic resonance imaging (gadolinium-CM) at an academic and a regional hospital. At each centre, data were collected over a 3-week control-period and a 3-week intervention-period with standard-clinical-care UCB distribution (4pp). Control and intervention were compared for cumulative iodine- and gadolinium-CM-loads in WWTP influent using linear regression analysis, corrected for administered CM. Compliance was evaluated in interviews with consenting patients; results were used to estimate achievable UCB-distribution effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>UCB were distributed to 69.1% (1188/1719) eligible patients, and had a statistically significant effect on WWTP influent CM-loads: intervention versus control -17.4% iopromide [F(1,37) = 54.7, p < 0.001, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.60; R<sup>2</sup> = 0.966]; -14.8% ioversol [F(1,37) = 154.5, p < 0.001, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.82; R<sup>2</sup> = 0.989]; -7.2% gadolinium at the academic hospital [F(1,37) = 43.3, p < 0.001, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.54, R<sup>2</sup> = 0.967]; -33.2% gadolinium at the regional hospital [F(1,37) = 1.13, p = 0.296, η<sup>2</sup> = 0.03]. Interviews were conducted with 47.0% (558/1188) patients: 92.1% (514/558) reported using UCB, and they used 89.2% (1834/2056) of the UCB they were provided with. Compliance-based estimates were: achievable compliance 29.9% to 43.6%, interceptable CM 26.7% to 38.9%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>UCB distribution had a significant but small impact on reducing wastewater CM-loads. Compliance data overestimate UCB-distribution effect, which underscores the importance of wastewater measurements when evaluating mitigation strategies.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Contrast materials (CM) increasingly emerge as environmental contaminants; because treatment plants are currently unable to remove CM from wastewater, the effects of urine-collection-bag distribution are evaluated. Findings Standard-care urine-collection-bag distribution after CT and MRI led to small but significant CM-load reductions in wastewater; compliance data, however, led to sizeable overestimation of (achievable) effects. Clinical relevance Urine-collection bag distribution had a significant but small impact on reducing contrast materials in wastewater. Most studies only include compliance data, but results show these overestimate impact, underscoring the importance of contrast-load measurements when evaluating mitigation strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-025-11984-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-025-11984-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:造影剂(CM)在现代临床中无处不在。由于代谢惰性和尿液排泄,污水处理厂(WWTP)很难从废水中去除CM,并且CM越来越多地成为环境污染物。本研究评估了尿收集袋(UCB)分布对污水处理厂进水中相应CM负荷的影响。材料和方法:这项前瞻性观察性多中心研究包括在学术医院和地区医院安排进行对比材料增强计算机断层扫描(碘- cm)或磁共振成像(钆- cm)的患者。在每个中心,通过标准临床护理UCB分布(4pp)在3周的对照期和3周的干预期收集数据。使用线性回归分析比较对照和干预对污水处理厂进水中碘和钆-CM的累积负荷的影响,并对给予的CM进行校正。在与同意的患者的访谈中评估依从性;结果用于估计可实现的ucb分布效果。结果:UCB分布在69.1%(1188/1719)符合条件的患者中,对污水处理厂进水cm负荷有统计学意义:干预组与对照组相比-17.4%碘丙胺[F(1,37) = 54.7, p 2 = 0.60;r2 = 0.966];-14.8% ioversol [F(1,37) = 154.5, p 2 = 0.82;r2 = 0.989];-7.2%钆在学术医院[F(1,37) = 43.3, p 2 = 0.54, R2 = 0.967];-33.2%钆在地区医院[F(1,37) = 1.13, p = 0.296, η2 = 0.03]。对47.0%(558/1188)的患者进行访谈,其中92.1%(514/558)的患者使用了医院提供的UCB,其中89.2%(1834/2056)的患者使用了UCB。基于遵从性的估计是:可实现的遵从性为29.9%至43.6%,可拦截的CM为26.7%至38.9%。结论:UCB分布对降低废水cm负荷有显著但不显著的影响。合规数据高估了ucb分布效应,这强调了在评估缓解战略时废水测量的重要性。造影剂(CM)日益成为环境污染物;由于处理厂目前无法从废水中去除CM,因此评估了尿液收集袋分配的效果。CT和MRI后标准护理尿液收集袋的分配导致废水中cm负荷减少,但幅度小,但效果显著;然而,依从性数据导致了对(可实现的)效果的相当大的高估。尿液收集袋的分布对减少废水中的造影剂有显著但较小的影响。大多数研究只包括依从性数据,但结果表明这些数据高估了影响,强调了在评估缓解策略时对比负荷测量的重要性。
Effect of distributing urine-collection bags on contrast-material load in wastewater.
Objectives: Contrast materials (CM) are ubiquitous in modern clinical practice. Metabolically inert and excreted in urine, treatment plants (WWTP) have difficulty removing CM from wastewater and CM increasingly emerge as environmental contaminants. This study evaluates the effect of urine-collection bag (UCB) distribution on corresponding CM load in WWTP influent.
Materials and methods: This prospective observational multicenter study includes patients scheduled for contrast-material-enhanced computed tomography (iodine-CM) or magnetic resonance imaging (gadolinium-CM) at an academic and a regional hospital. At each centre, data were collected over a 3-week control-period and a 3-week intervention-period with standard-clinical-care UCB distribution (4pp). Control and intervention were compared for cumulative iodine- and gadolinium-CM-loads in WWTP influent using linear regression analysis, corrected for administered CM. Compliance was evaluated in interviews with consenting patients; results were used to estimate achievable UCB-distribution effects.
Results: UCB were distributed to 69.1% (1188/1719) eligible patients, and had a statistically significant effect on WWTP influent CM-loads: intervention versus control -17.4% iopromide [F(1,37) = 54.7, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.60; R2 = 0.966]; -14.8% ioversol [F(1,37) = 154.5, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.82; R2 = 0.989]; -7.2% gadolinium at the academic hospital [F(1,37) = 43.3, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.54, R2 = 0.967]; -33.2% gadolinium at the regional hospital [F(1,37) = 1.13, p = 0.296, η2 = 0.03]. Interviews were conducted with 47.0% (558/1188) patients: 92.1% (514/558) reported using UCB, and they used 89.2% (1834/2056) of the UCB they were provided with. Compliance-based estimates were: achievable compliance 29.9% to 43.6%, interceptable CM 26.7% to 38.9%.
Conclusion: UCB distribution had a significant but small impact on reducing wastewater CM-loads. Compliance data overestimate UCB-distribution effect, which underscores the importance of wastewater measurements when evaluating mitigation strategies.
Key points: Question Contrast materials (CM) increasingly emerge as environmental contaminants; because treatment plants are currently unable to remove CM from wastewater, the effects of urine-collection-bag distribution are evaluated. Findings Standard-care urine-collection-bag distribution after CT and MRI led to small but significant CM-load reductions in wastewater; compliance data, however, led to sizeable overestimation of (achievable) effects. Clinical relevance Urine-collection bag distribution had a significant but small impact on reducing contrast materials in wastewater. Most studies only include compliance data, but results show these overestimate impact, underscoring the importance of contrast-load measurements when evaluating mitigation strategies.
期刊介绍:
European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field.
This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies.
From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.