Dematerialisation of patient's informed consent in radiology: insights on current status and radiologists' opinion from an Italian online survey.

PURPOSE: To assess the current status of patient's informed consent (PIC) management at radiological centres and the overall opinion of radiologist active members of the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) about PIC dematerialisation through an online survey. METHODS AND MATERIALS: All members were invited to join the survey as an initiative by the Imaging Informatics Chapter of SIRM. The survey consisted of 11 multiple-choice questions about participants' demographics, current local modalities of PIC acquisition and storage, perceived advantages and disadvantages of PIC dematerialisation over conventional paper-based PIC, and overall opinion about PIC dematerialisation. RESULTS: A total of 1791 radiologists (amounting to 17.4% of active SIRM members for the year 2016) joined the survey. Perceived advantages of PIC dematerialisation were easier and faster PIC recovery (96.5%), safer storage and conservation (94.5%), and reduced costs (90.7%). Conversely, the need to create dedicated areas for PIC acquisition inside each radiological unit (64.0%) and to gain preliminary approval for the use of advanced digital signature tools from patients (51.8%) were seen as potential disadvantages. Overall, 94.5% of respondents had a positive opinion about PIC dematerialisation. CONCLUSION: Radiologists were mostly favourable to PIC dematerialisation. However, concerns were raised that its practical implementation might face hurdles due to its complexity in current real life working conditions.

64-Slice CT angiography of the abdominal aorta and abdominal arteries: comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of iobitridol 350 mgI/ml versus iomeprol 400 mgI/ml in a prospective, randomised, double-blind multi-centre trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of iodine concentration on diagnostic efficacy in multi-detector-row computed tomography (MDCT) angiography of the abdominal aorta and abdominal arteries. METHODS: IRB approval and informed consent were obtained. In this double-blind trial, patients were randomised to undergo MDCT angiography of the abdominal arteries during administration of iobitridol (350 mgI/ml) or iomeprol (400 mgI/ml). Each centre applied its own technique for delivery of contrast medium, regardless of iodine concentration. Diagnostic efficacy, image quality, visualisation of the arterial wall and arterial enhancement were evaluated. A total of 153 patients received iobitridol and 154 received iomeprol. RESULTS: The ability to reach a diagnosis was "satisfactory" to "totally satisfactory" in 152 (99.3%) and 153 (99.4%) patients respectively. Image quality was rated as being "good" to "excellent" in 94.7 and 94.8% segments respectively. Similar results were observed for image quality of arterial walls (84.3 vs. 83.2%). The mean relative changes in arterial enhancement between baseline and arterial phase images showed no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the non-inferiority of the 350 versus 400 mgI/ml iodine concentration, in terms of diagnostic efficacy, in abdominal MDCT angiography. It also confirmed the high robustness and reliability of this technique across multi-national practices.