ArticleEmergency radiology2015
Enhancement of the pulmonary arteries and thoracic aorta: comparison of a biphasic contrast injection and fixed delay protocol with a monophasic injection and a timing bolus protocol.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comparison of bolus track and test bolus computed tomography pulmonary angiography and the implications on pulmonary and aortic vessel enhancement, effective dose and suboptimal scan rate.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- Imaging protocols for CT chest: A recommendation.The Indian journal of radiology & imagingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The definitive diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, relies on imaging. In this study, we compare the conventional computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) protocol to a double-rule out CT angiogram (DRO CTA) protocol in terms of vascular enhancement, radiation dose, and contrast volume delivered. The CTPA protocol involves injection of a timing bolus for localization of the pulmonary artery, whereas the DRO CTA protocol involves a biphasic contrast. We analyzed 248 consecutive CTPA studies and 242 consecutive DRO CTA studies. Vessel enhancement using region of interest (ROI) measurements, radiation dose delivered, and total contrast volume administered was recorded. The enhancement of all vessels measured was statistically significantly higher with the biphasic DRO CTA protocol than the CTPA protocol. The difference in mean vascular enhancement for the two protocols was greatest in the descending aorta (DA, P < 0.001) and least in the main pulmonary artery (MPA, P = 0.001). The percent of studies with vascular enhancement ≥250 Hounsfield units (HU) was significantly greater in all vascular beds except the MPA when the DRO CTA protocol was used. Studies performed with the DRO CTA protocol led to less radiation exposure and used less contrast than those performed with the CTPA protocol (P < 0.001 for both). According to the final radiology report, 35.08 % of studies in the CTPA group and 22.31 % of studies in the DRO CTA group were considered indeterminate (P = 0.001). In conclusion, the biphasic DRO CTA protocol leads to statistically significantly higher opacification of all pulmonary arterial and aortic vessels studied, with no greater delivery of radiation or contrast, than the monophasic CTPA protocol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25228282What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.