Abstract
Background
Abdominal CT angiography has been increasingly used for evaluation of various conditions related to abdominal vasculature in the pediatric population. However, no direct comparison has evaluated the quality of abdominal CT angiography in children using hand versus mechanical administration of intravenous (IV) contrast agent.
Objective
To compare hand versus mechanical administration of IV contrast agent in the quality of abdominal CT angiography in the pediatric population.
Materials and methods
We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical record to identify pediatric patients (≤18 years) who had abdominal CT angiography between August 2012 and August 2013. The information obtained includes: (1) type of administration of IV contrast agent (hand [group 1] versus mechanical [group 2]), (2) size (gauge) of IV catheter, (3) amount of contrast agent administered and (4) rate of contrast agent administration (ml/s). Two reviewers independently performed qualitative and quantitative evaluation of abdominal CT angiography image quality. Qualitative evaluation of abdominal CT angiography image quality was performed by visual assessment of the degree of contrast enhancement in the region of interest (ROI) based on a 4-point scale. Quantitative evaluation of each CT angiography examination was performed by measuring the Hounsfield unit (HU) using an ROI within the abdominal aorta at two levels (celiac axis and the inferior mesenteric artery) for each child. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the F-test was applied to compare contrast enhancement within the abdominal aorta at two levels (celiac axis and inferior mesenteric artery) between hand administration and mechanical administration of IV contrast methods with adjustment for age.
Results
We identified 46 pediatric patients (24 male, 22 female; mean age 7.3 ± 5.5 years; range 5 weeks to 18 years) with abdominal CT angiography performed during the study period. Of these patients, 16 (35%; 1.7 ± 2.2 years; range 5 weeks to 5 years) had hand administration of IV contrast agent and 30 (65%; 10.2 ± 4.2 years; range 4–18 years) had mechanical administration of IV contrast agent. All 46 abdominal CT angiography studies were of diagnostic quality based on qualitative evaluation (all ≥3). All abdominal CT angiography studies from both groups showed diagnostic quality of contrast enhancement (>150 HU) at both the celiac axis and the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) levels. The contrast enhancement of the abdominal aorta was not significantly different between the IV contrast administration methods at either the celiac axis level (360 ± 158 vs. 353 ± 116, P = 0.24) or the IMA level (340 ± 140 vs. 351 ± 90, P = 0.27), adjusting for age.
Conclusion
Diagnostic-quality abdominal CT angiography can be achieved using hand administration of IV contrast agent in infants and young children (≤5 years).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Kurian J, Epelman M, Darge K et al (2013) The role of CT angiography in the evaluation of pediatric renovascular hypertension. Pediatr Radiol 43:490–501
Uyeda JW, Anderson SW, Sakai O et al (2010) CT angiography in trauma. Radiol Clin North Am 48:423–438
Visrutaratna P, Srisuwan T, Sirivanichai C (2009) Pediatric renovascular hypertension in Thailand: CT angiographic findings. Pediatr Radiol 39:1321–1326
Capunay C, Carrascosa P, Martin Lopez E et al (2009) Multidetector CT angiography and virtual angiography of the abdomen. Abdom Imaging 34:81–93
Frush DP (2008) Pediatric abdominal CT angiography. Pediatr Radiol 38:S259–S266
Ferrari R, De Cecco CN, Iafrate F et al (2007) Anatomic variations of the celiac trunk and the mesenteric arteries evaluated with 64-row CT angiography. Radiol Med 112:988–998
Chan FP, Rubin GD (2005) MDCT angiography of pediatric vascular diseases of the abdomen, pelvis, and extremities. Pediatr Radiol 35:40–53
Bae KT, Heiken JP (2015) Scan and contrast administration principles of MDCT. Eur Radiol 15:E46–E59
Yu T, Zhu X, Tang L et al (2007) Review of CT angiography of aorta. Radiol Clin North Am 45:461–483
Cohen RA, Frush DP, Donnelly LF (2000) Data acquisition for pediatric CT angiography: problems and solutions. Pediatr Radiol 30:813–822
Schooler GR, Zurakowski D, Lee EY (2015) Evaluation of contrast injection site effectiveness: thoracic CTA in children with hand injection of IV contrast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:423–427
Sahai H, Ageel MI (2000) The analysis of variance: fixed, random and mixed models. Birkhauser, Boston, pp 57–71
Siegel MJ (2005) Pediatric CT angiography. Euro Radiol 15:D32–D36
Lee EY, Boiselle PM, Cleveland RH (2008) Multidetector CT evaluation of congenital lung anomalies. Radiology 247:632–648
Cademartiri F, Nieman K, van der Lugt A et al (2004) Intravenous contrast material administration at 16-detector row helical CT coronary angiography: test bolus versus bolus-tracking technique. Radiology 233:817–823
Conflicts of interest
None
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ayyala, R.S., Zurakowski, D. & Lee, E.Y. Quality of abdominal computed tomography angiography: hand versus mechanical intravenous contrast administration in children. Pediatr Radiol 45, 1781–1787 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-015-3410-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-015-3410-0