Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39196464›Full record

ReviewInsights into imaging2024

Critical but commonly neglected factors that affect contrast medium administration in CT.

Michael C McDermott, Joachim E Wildberger, Kyongtae T Bae

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Michael C McDermottDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center + , Maastricht, The Netherlands. michael.mcdermott@mumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5628-3378
Joachim E WildbergerDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center + , Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Kyongtae T BaeDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePast decades of research into contrast media injections and optimization thereof in radiology clinics have focused on scan acquisition parameters, patient-related factors, and contrast injection protocol variables. In this review, evidence is provided that a fourth bucket of crucial variables has been missed which account for previously unexplained phenomena and higher-than-expected variability in data. We propose how these critical factors should be considered and implemented in the contrast-medium administration protocols to optimize contrast enhancement.

methodsThis article leverages a combination of methodologies for uncovering and quantifying confounding variables associated with or affecting the contrast-medium injection. Engineering benchtop equipment such as Coriolis flow meters, pressure transducers, and volumetric measurement devices are combined with small, targeted systematic evaluations querying operators, equipment, and the physics and fluid dynamics that make a seemingly simple task of injecting fluid into a patient a complex and non-linear endeavor.

resultsEvidence is presented around seven key factors affecting the contrast-medium injection including a new way of selecting optimal IV catheters, degraded performance from longer tubing sets, variability associated with the mechanical injection system technology, common operator errors, fluids exchanging places stealthily based on gravity and density, wasted contrast media and inefficient saline flushes, as well as variability in the injected flow rate vs. theoretical expectations.

conclusionThere remain several critical, but not commonly known, sources of error associated with contrast-medium injections. Elimination of these hidden sources of error where possible can bring immediate benefits and help to drive standardized and optimized contrast-media injections. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This review brings to light the commonly neglected/unknown factors negatively impacting contrast-medium injections and provides recommendations that can result in patient benefits, quality improvements, sustainability increases, and financial benefits by enabling otherwise unachievable optimization. KEY POINTS: How IV contrast media is administered is a rarely considered source of CT imaging variability. IV catheter selection, tubing length, injection systems, and insufficient flushing can result in unintended variability. These findings can be immediately addressed to improve standardization in contrast-enhanced CT imaging.

Indexed as

Computed tomographyContrast mediaInjectionsInjection systemsIntravenous

Identifiers

PMID39196464
PMCPMC11358578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.