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
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
3946Références
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