ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Multiphase computed tomography (CT) using fixed volume contrast media may lead to high radiation exposure and toxicity in patients with low body weight. We evaluated a customised weight-based protocol for multiphase CT in terms of radiation exposure, image quality and cost savings. METHODS: A total of 224 patients were recruited. An optimised CT protocol was applied using 100 kV and 1 mL/kg of contrast media dosing. The image quality and radiation dose exposure of this CT protocol were compared to those of a standard 120 kV, 80 mL fixed volume protocol. The radiation dose information and CT Hounsfield units were recorded. The signal-to-noise ratio, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and figure of merit (FOM) were used as comparison metrics. The images were assessed for contrast opacification and visual quality by two radiologists. The renal function, contrast media volume and cost were also evaluated. RESULTS: The median effective dose was lowered by 16% in the optimised protocol, while the arterial phase images achieved significantly higher CNR and FOM. The radiologists' evaluation showed more than 97% absolute agreement with no significant differences in image quality. No significant differences were found in the pre- and post-CT estimated glomerular filtration rate. However, contrast media usage was significantly reduced by 1,680 mL, with an overall cost savings of USD 421 in the optimised protocol. CONCLUSION: The optimised weight-based protocol is cost-efficient and lowers radiation dose while maintaining overall contrast enhancement and image quality.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Fixed volume (FV) contrast media administration during CT examination is the standard practice in most healthcare institutions. We aim to validate a customised weight-based volume (WBV) method and compare it to the conventional FV methods, introduced in a regional setting. METHODS: 220 patients underwent CT of the chest, abdomen and pelvis (CAP) using a standard FV protocol, and subsequently, a customised 1.0 mL/kg WBV protocol within one year. Both image sets were assessed for contrast enhancement using CT attenuation at selected regions-of-interest (ROIs). The visual image quality was evaluated by three radiologists using a 4-point Likert scale. Quantitative CT attenuation was correlated with the visual quality assessment to determine the HU's enhancement indicative of the image quality grades. Contrast media usage was calculated to estimate cost-savings from both protocols. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 61 ± 14 years, and weight was 56.1 ± 8.7 kg. FV protocol produced higher contrast enhancement than WBV, p < 0.001. CT images' overall contrast enhancement was negatively correlated with body weight for FV protocol while the WBV protocol produced more consistent enhancement across different body weight. More than 90% of the images from both protocols were graded "Excellent". WBV protocol also enabled a 28% cost reduction with cost savings of US$1238. CONCLUSION: The customised WBV protocol produced CT images which were comparable to FV protocol for CT CAP examinations. A median CT value of 100 HU can be an indicator of good image quality for the WBV protocol.
