Journal of computer assisted tomography · 2024
Using Patient-Specific Contrast Enhancement Optimizer Simulation Software During the Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation-Computed Tomography Angiography in Patients With Aortic Stenosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Masuda Takanori, Nakaura Takeshi, Higaki Toru, Funama Yoshinori, Matsumoto Yoriaki, Sato Tomoyasu, Okimoto Tomokazu, Arao Keiko, Imaizumi Hiromasa, Arao Shinichi, Ono Atsushi, Hiratsuka Junichi, Awai Kazuo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed whether patient-specific contrast enhancement optimizer simulation software (p-COP) can reduce the contrast material (CM) dose compared with the conventional body weight (BW)-tailored scan protocol during transcatheter aortic valve implantation-computed tomography angiography (TAVI-CTA) in patients with aortic stenosis.
METHODS: We used the CM injection protocol selected by the p-COP in group A (n = 30). p-COP uses an algorithm that concerns data on an individual patient's cardiac output. Group B (n = 30) was assigned to the conventional BW-tailored CM injection protocol group. We compared the CM dose, CM amount, injection rate, and computed tomography (CT) values in the abdominal aorta between the 2 groups and classified them as acceptable (>280 Hounsfield units (HU)) or unacceptable (<279 HU) based on the optimal CT value and visualization scores for TAVI-CTA. We used the Mann-Whitney U test to compare patient characteristics and assess the interpatient variability of subjects in both groups.
RESULTS: Group A received 56.2 mL CM and 2.6 mL/s of injection, whereas group B received 76.9 mL CM and 3.4 mL/s of injection ( P < 0.01). The CT value for the abdominal aorta at the celiac level was 287.0 HU in group A and 301.7HU in group B ( P = 0.46). The acceptable (>280 HU) and unacceptable (<280 HU) CT value rates were 22 and 8 patients in group A and 24 and 6 patients in group B, respectively ( P = 0.76). We observed no significant differences in the visualization scores between groups A and B (visualization score = 3, P = 0.71).
CONCLUSION: The utilization of p-COP may decrease the CM dosage and injection rate by approximately 30% in individuals with aortic stenosis compared with the body-weight-tailored scan protocol during TAVI-CTA.
METHODS: We used the CM injection protocol selected by the p-COP in group A (n = 30). p-COP uses an algorithm that concerns data on an individual patient's cardiac output. Group B (n = 30) was assigned to the conventional BW-tailored CM injection protocol group. We compared the CM dose, CM amount, injection rate, and computed tomography (CT) values in the abdominal aorta between the 2 groups and classified them as acceptable (>280 Hounsfield units (HU)) or unacceptable (<279 HU) based on the optimal CT value and visualization scores for TAVI-CTA. We used the Mann-Whitney U test to compare patient characteristics and assess the interpatient variability of subjects in both groups.
RESULTS: Group A received 56.2 mL CM and 2.6 mL/s of injection, whereas group B received 76.9 mL CM and 3.4 mL/s of injection ( P < 0.01). The CT value for the abdominal aorta at the celiac level was 287.0 HU in group A and 301.7HU in group B ( P = 0.46). The acceptable (>280 HU) and unacceptable (<280 HU) CT value rates were 22 and 8 patients in group A and 24 and 6 patients in group B, respectively ( P = 0.76). We observed no significant differences in the visualization scores between groups A and B (visualization score = 3, P = 0.71).
CONCLUSION: The utilization of p-COP may decrease the CM dosage and injection rate by approximately 30% in individuals with aortic stenosis compared with the body-weight-tailored scan protocol during TAVI-CTA.