Comparison of Diatrizoate and Iohexol for Patient Acceptance and Fecal-Tagging Performance in Noncathartic CT Colonography.
Journal
Journal of computer assisted tomography
ISSN: 1532-3145
Titre abrégé: J Comput Assist Tomogr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7703942
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Aug 2023
09 Aug 2023
Historique:
medline:
10
8
2023
pubmed:
10
8
2023
entrez:
9
8
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The aim of this study was to compare diatrizoate and iohexol regarding patient acceptance and fecal-tagging performance in noncathartic computed tomography colonography. This study enrolled 284 volunteers with fecal tagging by either diatrizoate or iohexol at an iodine concentration of 13.33 mg/mL and an iodine load of 24 g. Patient acceptance was rated on a 4-point scale of gastrointestinal discomfort. Two gastrointestinal radiologists jointly analyzed image quality, fecal-tagging density and homogeneity, and residual contrast agent in the small intestine. The results were compared by the generalized estimating equation method. Patient acceptance was comparable between the 2 groups (3.95 ± 0.22 vs 3.96 ± 0.20, P = 0.777). The diatrizoate group had less residual fluid and stool than the iohexol group (P = 0.019, P = 0.004, respectively). There was no significant difference in colorectal distention, residual fluid, and stool tagging quality between the 2 groups (all P's > 0.05). The mean 2-dimensional image quality score was 4.59 ± 0.68 with diatrizoate and 3.60 ± 1.14 with iohexol (P < 0.001). The attenuation of tagged feces was 581 ± 66 HU with diatrizoate and 1038 ± 117 HU with iohexol (P < 0.001). Residual contrast agent in the small intestine was assessed at 55.3% and 62.3% for the diatrizoate group and iohexol group, respectively (P = 0.003). Compared with iohexol, diatrizoate had better image quality, proper fecal-tagging density, and more homogeneous tagging along with comparable excellent patient acceptance, and might be more suitable for fecal tagging in noncathartic computed tomography colonography.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37558647
doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000001526
pii: 00004728-990000000-00231
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, et al. Cancer statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:7–33.
Ladabaum U, Dominitz JA, Kahi C, et al. Strategies for colorectal cancer screening. Gastroenterology. 2020;158:418–432.
Kuipers EJ, Grady WM, Lieberman D, et al. Colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2015;1:10565.
de Wijkerslooth TR, de Haan MC, Stoop EM, et al. Burden of colonoscopy compared to non-cathartic CT-colonography in a colorectal cancer screening programme: randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2012;61:1552–1559.
Davidson KW, Barry MJ, Mangione CM, et alUS Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2021;325:1965–1977.
van der Meulen MP, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Goede SL, et al. Colorectal cancer: cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy versus CT colonography screening with participation rates and costs. Radiology. 2018;287:901–911.
Zalis ME, Blake MA, Cai W, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of laxative-free computed tomographic colonography for detection of adenomatous polyps in asymptomatic adults: a prospective evaluation. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:692–702.
Senore C, Correale L, Regge D, et al. Flexible sigmoidoscopy and CT colonography screening: patients' experience with and factors for undergoing screening-insight from the Proteus colon trial. Radiology. 2018;286:873–883.
Utano K, Nagata K, Honda T, et al. Diagnostic performance and patient acceptance of reduced-laxative CT colonography for the detection of polypoid and non-polypoid neoplasms: a multicenter prospective trial. Radiology. 2017;282:399–407.
Sali L, Mascalchi M, Falchini M, et al. Reduced and full-preparation CT colonography, fecal immunochemical test, and colonoscopy for population screening of colorectal cancer: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108:djv319.
Mitsuzaki K, Iinuma G, Morimoto T, et al. Computed tomographic colonography with a reduced dose of laxative using a novel barium sulfate contrast agent in Japan. Jpn J Radiol. 2019;37:245–254.
Fini L, Laghi L, Hassan C, et al. Noncathartic CT colonography to screen for colorectal neoplasia in subjects with a family history of colorectal cancer. Radiology. 2014;270:784–790.
Zalis ME, Perumpillichira JJ, Magee C, et al. Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology. 2006;239:149–159.
Lefere P, Gryspeerdt S, Marrannes J, et al. CT colonography after fecal tagging with a reduced cathartic cleansing and a reduced volume of barium. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1836–1842.
Zueco Zueco C, Sobrido Sampedro C, Corroto JD, et al. CT colonography without cathartic preparation: positive predictive value and patient experience in clinical practice. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1195–1204.
Mahgerefteh S, Fraifeld S, Blachar A, et al. CT colonography with decreased purgation: balancing preparation, performance, and patient acceptance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:1531–1539.
Kim B, Park SH, Hong GS, et al. Iohexol versus diatrizoate for fecal/fluid tagging during CT colonography performed with cathartic preparation: comparison of examination quality. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:1561–1569.
McNamara MM, Lockhart ME, Fineberg NS, et al. Oral contrast media for body CT: comparison of diatrizoate sodium and iohexol for patient acceptance and bowel opacification. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:1137–1141.
Pollentine A, Ngan-Soo E, McCoubrie P. Acceptability of oral iodinated contrast media: a head-to-head comparison of four media. Br J Radiol. 2013;86:20120636.
Rogers D, Sheth C, Eisenmenger L, et al. Iopamidol as an oral contrast media for computed tomography: a taste comparison to iohexol, diatrizoate sodium, and barium sulfate. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017;42:2822–2826.
Liedenbaum MH, Denters MJ, Zijta FM, et al. Reducing the oral contrast dose in CT colonography: evaluation of faecal tagging quality and patient acceptance. Clin Radiol. 2011;66:30–37.
Campanella D, Morra L, Delsanto S, et al. Comparison of three different iodine-based bowel regimens for CT colonography. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:348–358.
Jensch S, de Vries AH, Pot D, et al. Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amounts of mild laxatives for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:158–167.
Sali L, Ventura L, Grazzini G, et al. Patients' experience of screening CT colonography with reduced and full bowel preparation in a randomised trial. Eur Radiol. 2019;29:2457–2464.
Jensch S, de Vries AH, Peringa J, et al. CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: performance characteristics in an increased-risk population. Radiology. 2008;247:122–132.
Nagata K, Singh AK, Sangwaiya MJ, et al. Comparative evaluation of the fecal-tagging quality in CT colonography: barium vs. iodinated oral contrast agent. Acad Radiol. 2009;16:1393–1399.
Johnson B, Hinshaw JL, Robbins JB, et al. Objective and subjective intrapatient comparison of iohexol versus diatrizoate for bowel preparation quality at CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206:1202–1207.
Fletcher JG, Silva AC, Fidler JL, et al. Noncathartic CT colonography: image quality assessment and performance and in a screening cohort. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:787–794.
Perry E, Moore H, Reeve J. Computed tomography colonography: retrospective comparison of laxative plus barium tagging versus iodinated contrast only for bowel preparation and faecal tagging. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2019;63:203–211.
Bannas P, Bakke J, Munoz del Rio A, et al. Intra-individual comparison of magnesium citrate and sodium phosphate for bowel preparation at CT colonography: automated volumetric analysis of residual fluid for quality assessment. Clin Radiol. 2014;69:1171–1177.
ACR Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. ACR Manual On Contrast Media [American College of Radiology Web site]. September 1, 2020. Available at: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Clinical-Resources/Contrast_Media.pdf. Accessed August 31, 2022.
Pollentine A, Mortimer A, McCoubrie P, et al. Evaluation of two minimal-preparation regimes for CT colonography: optimising image quality and patient acceptability. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:1085–1092.
Tachibana R, Nappi JJ, Ota J, et al. Deep learning electronic cleansing for single- and dual-energy CT colonography. Radiographics. 2018;38:2034–2050.