Positive enteric contrast material for abdominal and pelvic CT with automatic exposure control: What is the effect on patient radiation exposure? Eur J Radiol Apr 12. [Epub ahead of print]

Department of Radiology, University of California San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628, United States.
European journal of radiology (Impact Factor: 2.37). 04/2011; 79(2):e58-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.03.059
Source: PubMed


To assess the effect of positive enteric contrast administration on automatic exposure control (AEC) CT radiation exposure in (1) a CT phantom, and (2) a retrospective review of patients.
We scanned a CT phantom containing simulated bowel that was sequentially filled with water and positive enteric contrast, and recorded the mean volume CT dose index (CTDIvol). We also identified 17 patients who had undergone 2 technically comparable CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis, one with positive enteric contrast and the other with oral water. Paired Student's t-tests were used to compare the mean CTDIvol between scans performed with and without positive enteric contrast. Both the phantom and patient CT scans were performed using AEC with a fixed noise index.
The mean CTDIvol for the phantom with simulated bowel containing water and positive enteric contrast were 8.2 ± 0.2 mGy, and 8.7 ± 0.1 mGy (6.1% higher than water, p=0.02), respectively. The mean CTDIvol for patients scanned with oral water and with positive enteric contrast were 11.8 mGy and 13.1 mGy, respectively (p=0.003). This corresponded to a mean CTDIvol which was 11.0% higher (range: 0.0-20.7% higher) in scans with positive enteric contrast than those with oral water in patients.
When automatic exposure control is utilized for abdominopelvic CT, the radiation exposure, as measured by CTDIvol, is higher for scans performed with positive enteric contrast than those with oral water.

21 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acute biliary tract pathology remains as one of the most common worldwide causes of emergency room visits. Emergency room physicians, surgeons and radiologists devote considerable time and effort to rapidly and accurately diagnose these conditions in order to avoid mistakes that may lead to considerable morbidity and mortality. Fortunately, rapid advances in technology and refinements in invasive and non-invasive methods have improved our ability to provide precise and timely diagnoses. Ultrasonography (US) remains as the premier modality for initial (and often definitive) evaluation, but in order to maximize the accuracy of this technique, a meticulous and thorough evaluation by the operator is necessary. As the utilization of computed tomography (CT) in the emergency setting has grown exponentially in recent years, it is not surprising that many patients ultimately diagnosed with acute biliary diseases are evaluated initially with CT. Magnetic resonance (MR) and nuclear scintigraphy are usually second tier examinations, reserved for specific clinical situations or as complementary tests following an initial US or CT. However, the use of MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in the emergency setting has also increased substantially in recent years. Endoscopic retrograde and percutaneous cholangiography are reserved mainly for therapeutic interventions after a precise diagnosis has been reached through a judicious use of imaging tests. This chapter reviews the appearance of common acute biliary conditions on the various imaging modalities. Emphasis is placed on discussing the most appropriate test for each disease. Potential sources of error and imaging pitfalls are also discussed in detail.
    Emergency Radiology of the Abdomen, 01/2011: pages 55-68;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article discusses the critical protocol considerations in imaging patients with abdominal pain in the emergency department, specifically, the use of oral contrast, intravenous contrast, image postprocessing, and radiation dose. These considerations related to the use of computed tomography imaging of abdominal pain are reviewed in an evidence-based fashion.
    Radiologic Clinics of North America 01/2012; 50(1):137-47. DOI:10.1016/j.rcl.2011.08.009 · 1.98 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We examine the effects of Head Start participation on parenting and child maltreatment in a large and diverse sample of low-income families in large U.S. cities (N = 2,807), using rich data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS). To address the issue of selection bias, we employ several analytic approaches, including logistic regressions with a rich set of pretreatment controls as well as propensity score matching models, comparing the effects of Head Start to any other arrangements as well as specific types of other arrangements. We find that compared to children who did not attend Head Start, children who did attend Head Start are less likely to have low access to learning materials and less likely to experience spanking by their parents at age five. Moreover, we find that the effects of Head Start vary depending on the specific type of other child care arrangements to which they are compared, with the most consistently beneficial protective effects seen when Head Start is compared to being home in exclusively parental care.
    Children and Youth Services Review 07/2013; 35(7):1119-1129. DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.03.008 · 1.27 Impact Factor