Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 2009–2016 | Cite as

Spiral flow-generating tube for saline chaser improves aortic enhancement in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced hepatic MRI

  • Ayumi IyamaEmail author
  • Takeshi Nakaura
  • Yuji Iyama
  • Masafumi Kidoh
  • Yasunori Nagayama
  • Seitaro Oda
  • Daisuke Utsunomiya
  • Tomohiro Namimoto
  • Kosuke Morita
  • Koji Yuba
  • Yasuyuki Yamashita
Magnetic Resonance
  • 129 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the effect of a spiral tube on contrast enhancement in the hepatic arterial phase (HAP) of gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Methods

In this retrospective study, we observed 104 patients who underwent dynamic MRI of the liver between October 2017 and December 2017. Three Gd-EOB-DTPA injection protocols were compared: (A) conventional method (undiluted Gd-EOB-DTPA, injection rate 1 ml/s, n = 36); (B) spiral dilution method (1:1 diluted Gd-EOB-DTPA with saline [off-label], injection rate 2 ml/s via spiral tube, n = 38); (C) spiral-flushed method (undiluted Gd-EOB-DTPA, injection rate 1 ml/s via spiral tube, n = 30). We regarded protocol-A as a control. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the abdominal aorta was calculated using arterial phase images. Image contrast and artefacts were evaluated by two board-certified radiologists, using a four-point scale. Statistical analyses included Dunnett’s test, the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Steel test.

Results

The SNR of the aorta was significantly higher with protocol-C (25.4 ± 8.8) than protocol-A (20.8 ± 5.4, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in SNR between protocols A and B (p = 0.47). The contrast score of protocol-C was significantly higher than that of protocol-A (p = 0.0019). There was no significant difference in contrast score between protocols A and B (p = 0.50). There was no significant difference in artefacts among the three protocols (p = 0.96).

Conclusions

Use of a spiral tube with a slow injection protocol contributed to improved aortic contrast enhancement in the HAP of GD-EOB-DTPA-enhanced hepatic MRI.

Key Points

• Gadoxetic acid shows weaker arterial enhancement at recommended doses, compared with nonspecific gadolinium agents; selection of an appropriate injection protocol is important.

• A spiral flow-generating tube improves the transport efficiency of the contrast media, and increases the signal-to-noise ratio of the aorta in hepatic arterial phase.

• A spiral flow-generating tube does not contribute to artefact reduction in hepatic arterial phase.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Contrast media Liver 

Abbreviations

CT

Computed tomography

HAP

Hepatic arterial phase

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

SNR

Signal-to-noise ratio

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Takeshi Nakaura.

Conflict of interest

Yuba Koji declares a relationship with the following company: Nemoto Kyorindo; however he did not analyse and control the data or evaluate the results.

The other authors declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors (Takeshi Nakaura) has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Observational

• Performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Frydrychowicz A, Lubner MG, Brown JJ et al (2012) Hepatobiliary MR imaging with gadolinium-based contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:492–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sirlin CB, Hussain HK, Jonas E et al (2014) Consensus report from the 6th International forum for liver MRI using gadoxetic acid. J Magn Reson Imaging 40:516–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hamm B, Staks T, Mühler A et al (1995) Phase I clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA as a hepatobiliary MR contrast agent: safety, pharmacokinetics, and MR imaging. Radiology 195:785–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann HJ (2005) Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 40:715–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chung SH, Kim MJ, Choi JY, Hong HS (2010) Comparison of two different injection rates of gadoxetic acid for arterial phase MRI of the liver. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haradome H, Grazioli L, Tsunoo M et al (2010) Can MR fluoroscopic triggering technique and slow rate injection provide appropriate arterial phase images with reducing artifacts on gadoxetic acid-DTPA (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced hepatic MR imaging? J Magn Reson Imaging 32:334–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim YK, Lin WC, Sung K et al (2017) Reducing artifacts during arterial phase of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging: dilution method versus reduced injection rate. Radiology 283:429–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Behrendt FF, Bruners P, Keil S et al (2010) Effect of different saline chaser volumes and flow rates on intravascular contrast enhancement in CT using a circulation phantom. Eur J Radiol 73:688–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee K, Kishimoto M, Shimizu J, Iwasaki T, Miyake Y, Yamada K (2010) Effect of a saline chaser for contrast enhancement of computed tomographic angiography in cattle. Vet Rec 166:137–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yoon DY, You SY, Choi CS et al (2006) Multi-detector row CT of the head and neck: comparison of different volumes of contrast material with and without a saline chaser. Neuroradiology 48:935–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Monyé C, Cademartiri F, de Weert TT, Siepman DA, Dippel DW, van Der Lugt A (2005) Sixteen-detector row CT angiography of carotid arteries: comparison of different volumes of contrast material with and without a bolus chaser. Radiology 237:555–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Behrendt FF, Jost G, Pietsch H et al (2011) Computed tomography angiography: the effect of different chaser flow rates, volumes, and fluids on contrast enhancement. Invest Radiol 46:271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kidoh M, Nakaura T, Awai K et al (2013) Novel connecting tube for saline chaser in contrast-enhanced CT: the effect of spiral flow of saline on contrast enhancement. Eur Radiol 23:3213–3218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Masuda T, Funama Y, Nakaura T et al (2015) Delivering the Saline Chaser Via a Spiral Flow-Generating Tube Improves Arterial Enhancement for Computed Tomography Angiography of the Lower Extremities. J Comput Assist Tomogr 39:962–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nakamura S, Nakaura T, Kidoh M et al (2013) Timing of the hepatic arterial phase at Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced hepatic dynamic MRI: comparison of the test-injection and the fixed-time delay method. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:548–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    OpenStax (2014) The onset of turbulence. OpenStax College. Available via https://cnx.org/contents/Ax2o07Ul@8.8:biq2eyw4@7/The-Onset-of-Turbulence. Accessed 10 June 2018
  17. 17.
    Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Sou H et al (2009) Dilution method of gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). J Magn Reson Imaging 30:849–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bae KT (2010) Intravenous contrast medium administration and scan timing at CT: considerations and approaches. Radiology 256:32–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ayumi Iyama
    • 1
    Email author
  • Takeshi Nakaura
    • 1
  • Yuji Iyama
    • 2
  • Masafumi Kidoh
    • 1
  • Yasunori Nagayama
    • 1
  • Seitaro Oda
    • 1
  • Daisuke Utsunomiya
    • 1
  • Tomohiro Namimoto
    • 1
  • Kosuke Morita
    • 1
  • Koji Yuba
    • 3
  • Yasuyuki Yamashita
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medical SciencesKumamoto UniversityKumamotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyRed Cross Kumamoto HospitalKumamotoJapan
  3. 3.Sales DivisionNemoto KyorindoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations