Display options
Cite
Zanardo M, Doniselli FM, Esseridou A, et al. Abdominal CT: a radiologist-driven adjustment of the dose of iodinated contrast agent approaches a calculation per lean body weight. Eur Radiol Exp. 2018;2(1):41doi: 10.1186/s41747-018-0074-1.
Zanardo, M., Doniselli, F. M., Esseridou, A., Tritella, S., Mattiuz, C., Menicagli, L., Di Leo, G., & Sardanelli, F. (2018). Abdominal CT: a radiologist-driven adjustment of the dose of iodinated contrast agent approaches a calculation per lean body weight. European radiology experimental, 2(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-018-0074-1
Zanardo, Moreno, et al. "Abdominal CT: a radiologist-driven adjustment of the dose of iodinated contrast agent approaches a calculation per lean body weight." European radiology experimental vol. 2,1 (2018): 41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-018-0074-1
Zanardo M, Doniselli FM, Esseridou A, Tritella S, Mattiuz C, Menicagli L, Di Leo G, Sardanelli F. Abdominal CT: a radiologist-driven adjustment of the dose of iodinated contrast agent approaches a calculation per lean body weight. Eur Radiol Exp. 2018 Dec 05;2(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s41747-018-0074-1. PMID: 30515613; PMCID: PMC6279751.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Eur Radiol Exp. 2018 Dec 05;2(1):41. doi: 10.1186/s41747-018-0074-1.

Abdominal CT: a radiologist-driven adjustment of the dose of iodinated contrast agent approaches a calculation per lean body weight.

European radiology experimental

Moreno Zanardo, Fabio Martino Doniselli, Anastassia Esseridou, Stefania Tritella, Chiara Mattiuz, Laura Menicagli, Giovanni Di Leo, Francesco Sardanelli

Affiliations

  1. PhD Course in Integrative Biomedical Research, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133, Milan, Italy. [email protected].
  2. Postgraduate School in Radiodiagnostics, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy.
  3. Radiology Unit, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy.
  4. Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy.

PMID: 30515613 PMCID: PMC6279751 DOI: 10.1186/s41747-018-0074-1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The contrast agent (CA) dose for abdominal computed tomography (CT) is typically based on patient total body weight (TBW), ignoring adipose tissue distribution. We report on our experience of dosing according to the lean body weight (LBW).

METHODS: After Ethics Committee approval, we retrospectively screened 219 consecutive patients, 18 being excluded for not matching the inclusion criteria. Thus, 201 were analysed (106 males), all undergoing a contrast-enhanced abdominal CT with iopamidol (370 mgI/mL) or iomeprol (400 mgI/mL). LBW was estimated using validated formulas. Liver contrast-enhancement (CE

RESULTS: Mean age was 66 ± 13 years, TBW 72 ± 15 kg, LBW 53 ± 11 kg, and LBW/TBW ratio 74 ± 8%; body mass index was 26 ± 5 kg/m

CONCLUSIONS: The injected CA dose was highly variable, with obese patients receiving a lower dose than underweight patients, as a radiologist-driven 'compensation effect'. Diagnostic abdomen CT examinations may be obtained using 0.63 gI/kg of LBW.

Keywords: Abdomen; Body composition; Body weight; Contrast media; Tomography (x-ray; computed)

References

  1. Radiology. 2000 Sep;216(3):718-23 - PubMed
  2. Eur Radiol. 2003 Sep;13(9):2155-60 - PubMed
  3. J Clin Invest. 1952 Nov;31(11):976-83 - PubMed
  4. Radiology. 2004 Jan;230(1):142-50 - PubMed
  5. Radiology. 2004 Dec;233(3):682-8 - PubMed
  6. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2005;44(10):1051-65 - PubMed
  7. Eur J Radiol. 2006 May;58(2):165-76 - PubMed
  8. Radiographics. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(6):1637-53 - PubMed
  9. Radiology. 2007 May;243(2):431-7 - PubMed
  10. Radiology. 2007 Nov;245(2):475-82 - PubMed
  11. Kidney Int. 2008 Jan;73(1):19-33 - PubMed
  12. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Mar;190(3):777-84 - PubMed
  13. Eur J Radiol. 2009 Jun;70(3):507-11 - PubMed
  14. Radiology. 2008 Dec;249(3):872-7 - PubMed
  15. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Apr;192(4):1071-8 - PubMed
  16. Radiology. 2010 Jan;254(1):163-9 - PubMed
  17. Nutr Rev. 1991 Jun;49(6):163-75 - PubMed
  18. Radiology. 2010 Jul;256(1):32-61 - PubMed
  19. Eur J Radiol. 2011 Dec;80(3):643-7 - PubMed
  20. Eur J Radiol. 2011 Dec;80(3):e273-7 - PubMed
  21. Acta Radiol. 2012 Jul;53(6):601-6 - PubMed
  22. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2013 Mar-Apr;37(2):159-64 - PubMed
  23. Eur Radiol. 2013 Jul;23(7):1855-61 - PubMed
  24. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2014 Nov;38(8):940-53 - PubMed
  25. Radiology. 2016 Mar;278(3):773-81 - PubMed
  26. Radiology. 2016 Mar;278(3):956-7 - PubMed
  27. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 Mar;14(3):359-370 - PubMed
  28. Biomed Res Int. 2018 Aug 13;2018:8521893 - PubMed
  29. J Clin Pathol. 1966 Jul;19(4):389-91 - PubMed
  30. Am J Physiol. 1984 Oct;247(4 Pt 2):F632-6 - PubMed
  31. Invest Radiol. 1983 Jul-Aug;18(4):364-7 - PubMed
  32. Radiology. 1995 May;195(2):353-7 - PubMed
  33. Radiology. 1994 Nov;193(2):513-7 - PubMed
  34. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1994 Apr;26(4):292-307 - PubMed
  35. Radiology. 1998 Feb;206(2):455-64 - PubMed
  36. Radiology. 1998 Jun;207(3):647-55 - PubMed
  37. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998 Aug;171(2):429-32 - PubMed
  38. Radiology. 1976 Nov;121(2):379-82 - PubMed

Publication Types