Performance of single-use syringe versus multi-use MR contrast injectors: a prospective comparative study.


Journal

Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 03 2020
Historique:
received: 24 07 2019
accepted: 11 02 2020
entrez: 5 3 2020
pubmed: 5 3 2020
medline: 18 11 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The goal of this study was to compare performance parameters of a single-use syringe and a multi-use MR contrast injector. We compared preparation time, cost for disposables and volumes of contrast material used for a single-use (SI) and a multi-use (MI) MR contrast injector in a prospective cross-over trial. During the first study period all consecutive patients eligible for dynamic MR on two systems were included during a period of 20 working days. After 10 days, the injector was switched. Radiographer satisfaction was evaluated using a questionnaire. Contrast usage and waste on system MI was optimised by extra instructions for our radiographers and measured during the second study period of 10 consecutive working days. A total of 202 and 163 patients for systems SI and MI were included, respectively. Average preparation time was 4:55 min for SI and 2:24 min for MI (p < 0.05). Contrast waste for SI was 13% using 7.5 ml syringes. Contrast waste for MI was 5% for 7.5 ml containers. Costs for disposables were lower for MI if more than 5 patients per day were injected. Radiographer satisfaction was higher for MI (4.7 versus 2.8 on a 5-point scale; p < 0.05). The multi-use MR contrast injector led to higher radiographer satisfaction, shorter preparation time, and lower cost if more than 5 patients were injected per day. In addition, cheaper contrast containers of 15 or 30 ml could be used for the first patients if more than 2 or more than 4 injections are performed per day, potentially leading to lower contrast waste.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32127584
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-60697-w
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-60697-w
pmc: PMC7054519
doi:

Substances chimiques

Contrast Media 0

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

3946

Références

Kanal, E. Gadolinium based contrast agents (GBCA): Safety overview after 3 decades of clinical experience. Magn. Reson. Imaging 34, 1341–1345, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2016.08.017 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2016.08.017 pubmed: 27608608
Jost, G., Endrikat, J. & Pietsch, H. The Impact of Injector-Based Contrast Agent Administration on Bolus Shape and Magnetic Resonance Angiography Image Quality. Magn. Reson. Insights 10, 1178623X17705894, https://doi.org/10.1177/1178623X17705894 (2017).
doi: 10.1177/1178623X17705894 pubmed: 28579796 pmcid: 5428122
Boland, G. W. & Enhancing, C. T. productivity: strategies for increasing capacity. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 191, 3–10, https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3208 (2008).
doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.3208 pubmed: 18562715
Saini, S. et al. Technical cost of CT examinations. Radiology 218, 172–175, https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.218.1.r01ja01172 (2001).
doi: 10.1148/radiology.218.1.r01ja01172 pubmed: 11152797
Chwang, W. B. et al. Reducing Functional MR Imaging Acquisition Times by Optimizing Workflow. Radiographics 37, 316–322, https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017160035 (2017).
doi: 10.1148/rg.2017160035 pubmed: 28076003
Niendorf, H. P., Laniado, M., Semmler, W., Schorner, W. & Felix, R. Dose administration of gadolinium-DTPA in MR imaging of intracranial tumors. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 8, 803–815 (1987).
pubmed: 2823588
Heverhagen, J. T., Wright, C. L., Schmalbrock, P. & Knopp, M. V. Dose comparison of single versus double dose in contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the renal arteries: intra-individual cross-over blinded trial using Gd-DTPA. Eur. Radiol. 19, 67–72, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1120-9 (2009).
doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-1120-9 pubmed: 18654783
Nural, M. S., Gokce, E., Danaci, M., Bayrak, I. K. & Diren, H. B. Focal liver lesions: whether a standard dose (0.05 mmol/kg) gadobenate dimeglumine can provide the same diagnostic data as the 0.1 mmol/kg dose. Eur. J. Radiol. 66, 65–74, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.04.022 (2008).
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.04.022 pubmed: 17555901
D’Angelo, T. et al. High-throughput gadobutrol-enhanced CMR: a time and dose optimization study. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 19, 83, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-017-0400-4 (2017).
doi: 10.1186/s12968-017-0400-4 pubmed: 29110679 pmcid: 5674223
Katakami, N. et al. Magnetic resonance evaluation of brain metastases from systemic malignances with two doses of gadobutrol 1.0 m compared with gadoteridol: a multicenter, phase ii/iii study in patients with known or suspected brain metastases. Invest. Radiol. 46, 411–418, https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e3182145a6c (2011).
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3182145a6c pubmed: 21467949
Breuer, J., Gutierrez, J., Latchaw, R., Lehr, R. & Sorensen, A. G. Gadobutrol in the central nervous system at three doses: results from a phase II, randomized, multicenter trial. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 39, 410–418, https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24180 (2014).
doi: 10.1002/jmri.24180 pubmed: 23681501
GLP-conform study: Microbiological Contamination Control Study of the ulricheasy-INJECT Max 3 System Studien-Nr. 12046467.
Social Science Statistics, http://www.socscistatistics.com/Default.aspx
Buerke, B. et al. Automatic MDCT injectors: hygiene and efficiency of disposable, prefilled, and multidosing roller pump systems in clinical routine. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 197, W226–232, https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5924 (2011).
doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.5924 pubmed: 21785046
Colombo, G. L., Andreis, I. A., Di Matteo, S., Bruno, G. M. & Mondellini, C. Syringeless power injector versus dual-syringe power injector: economic evaluation of user performance, the impact on contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) workflow exams, and hospital costs. Med. Devices 6, 169–174, https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S51757 (2013).
doi: 10.2147/MDER.S51757
Ma, X., Singh, A., Fay, J., Boland, G. & Sahani, D. V. Comparison of dual-syringe and syringeless power injectors in outpatient MDCT practice: impact on the operator’s performance, CT workflow, and operation cost. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 9, 578–582, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2012.04.007 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2012.04.007 pubmed: 22863467

Auteurs

F Struik (F)

Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. struikfe@gmail.com.

J J Futterer (JJ)

Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

W M Prokop (WM)

Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH