Loading…

Vascular conspicuity differs among injection protocols and scanner types for canine multiphasic abdominal computed tomographic angiography

Multiphasic multidetector computed tomographic angiography is a standard diagnostic test for canine abdominal vascular disorders. Three imaging protocols have been previously described. The test‐bolus protocol allows precise timing but can be time consuming to perform. Bolus‐tracking software is fas...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Veterinary radiology & ultrasound 2018-11, Vol.59 (6), p.677-686
Main Authors: Thierry, Florence, Chau, Jennifer, Makara, Mariano, Specchi, Swan, Auriemma, Edoardo, Longo, Maurizio, Handel, Ian, Schwarz, Tobias
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3609-373c87979626a10d1b2556e928cae14b62a1a961e5c9acbbe9c3c08a3eea61f53
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3609-373c87979626a10d1b2556e928cae14b62a1a961e5c9acbbe9c3c08a3eea61f53
container_end_page 686
container_issue 6
container_start_page 677
container_title Veterinary radiology & ultrasound
container_volume 59
creator Thierry, Florence
Chau, Jennifer
Makara, Mariano
Specchi, Swan
Auriemma, Edoardo
Longo, Maurizio
Handel, Ian
Schwarz, Tobias
description Multiphasic multidetector computed tomographic angiography is a standard diagnostic test for canine abdominal vascular disorders. Three imaging protocols have been previously described. The test‐bolus protocol allows precise timing but can be time consuming to perform. Bolus‐tracking software is fast and easy to use but can be problematic for exact timing of vascular phases. A recently described fixed‐injection‐duration protocol is not influenced by body weight and provides a wider temporal window for arterial acquisitions. Objectives of this retrospective and prospective, multicentric, method comparison study were to determine which of the three multidetector computed tomographic angiography protocols allows best vascular conspicuity of the canine abdomen and to assess the influence of different multidetector computed tomography (CT) scanners on study quality. Triple‐phase multidetector computed tomographic angiography canine abdominal studies from 30 dogs were retrospectively retrieved from three different institutions. Each institution performed one of the three computed tomographic angiography protocols (4‐row and 16‐row multidetector CT). Prospectively, the three protocols were also acquired with similar conditions on a 64‐row MDCT in 21 dogs. Main abdominal vessels were scored by blinded readers for each phase. The fixed‐injection‐duration protocol had the best combined arterial and portal vascular conspicuity on scanners of limited speed, while the test‐bolus protocol provided the best overall vascular conspicuity on 64‐row multidetector CT scanner. The quality of arterial studies performed on 64‐row MDCT scanner was improved compared to the ones performed on four‐ to 16‐row multidetector CT scanners. Findings supported the fixed‐injection‐duration protocol as the best compromise between an ideal portal vascular enhancement and an easily reproducible protocol on scanners with low and high number of detector rows.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/vru.12679
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2101277030</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2101277030</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3609-373c87979626a10d1b2556e928cae14b62a1a961e5c9acbbe9c3c08a3eea61f53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kM1K5jAUhoOMqKMu5gaGLMdFNT82aZaDqCMIgqjbcpqefkbapJO0Sm_Bq55oHXdmk4T34Tmcl5AfnB3zfE6e43zMhdJmi-xxfcqKSij-Lb9ZWRUVr-Qu-Z7SE2Oi1ELvkF3JuBFMVnvk9QGSnXuI1AafRmdnNy20dV2HMVEYgt9Q55_QTi54OsYwBRv6nPiWJgveY6TTMmKiXcgO8M4jHeZ-cuMjJGcpNG0YnIc-DxjGecKWTmEImwjj41vsN279LAdku4M-4eHHvU_uL87vzv4U1zeXV2e_rwsrFTOF1NJW2mijhALOWt6IslRoRGUB-WmjBHAwimNpDdimQWOlZRVIRFC8K-U--bV68zZ_Z0xTPbhkse_BY5hTLTjjQmsmWUaPVtTGkFLErh6jGyAuNWf1W_V1rr5-rz6zPz-0czNg-0n-7zoDJyvw4npcvjbVD7f3q_IfmeeSHg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2101277030</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Vascular conspicuity differs among injection protocols and scanner types for canine multiphasic abdominal computed tomographic angiography</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><creator>Thierry, Florence ; Chau, Jennifer ; Makara, Mariano ; Specchi, Swan ; Auriemma, Edoardo ; Longo, Maurizio ; Handel, Ian ; Schwarz, Tobias</creator><creatorcontrib>Thierry, Florence ; Chau, Jennifer ; Makara, Mariano ; Specchi, Swan ; Auriemma, Edoardo ; Longo, Maurizio ; Handel, Ian ; Schwarz, Tobias</creatorcontrib><description>Multiphasic multidetector computed tomographic angiography is a standard diagnostic test for canine abdominal vascular disorders. Three imaging protocols have been previously described. The test‐bolus protocol allows precise timing but can be time consuming to perform. Bolus‐tracking software is fast and easy to use but can be problematic for exact timing of vascular phases. A recently described fixed‐injection‐duration protocol is not influenced by body weight and provides a wider temporal window for arterial acquisitions. Objectives of this retrospective and prospective, multicentric, method comparison study were to determine which of the three multidetector computed tomographic angiography protocols allows best vascular conspicuity of the canine abdomen and to assess the influence of different multidetector computed tomography (CT) scanners on study quality. Triple‐phase multidetector computed tomographic angiography canine abdominal studies from 30 dogs were retrospectively retrieved from three different institutions. Each institution performed one of the three computed tomographic angiography protocols (4‐row and 16‐row multidetector CT). Prospectively, the three protocols were also acquired with similar conditions on a 64‐row MDCT in 21 dogs. Main abdominal vessels were scored by blinded readers for each phase. The fixed‐injection‐duration protocol had the best combined arterial and portal vascular conspicuity on scanners of limited speed, while the test‐bolus protocol provided the best overall vascular conspicuity on 64‐row multidetector CT scanner. The quality of arterial studies performed on 64‐row MDCT scanner was improved compared to the ones performed on four‐ to 16‐row multidetector CT scanners. Findings supported the fixed‐injection‐duration protocol as the best compromise between an ideal portal vascular enhancement and an easily reproducible protocol on scanners with low and high number of detector rows.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1058-8183</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1740-8261</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/vru.12679</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30192038</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>Abdomen - diagnostic imaging ; angiographic ; Animals ; arterial ; Computed Tomography Angiography - methods ; Computed Tomography Angiography - veterinary ; dog ; Dogs ; Female ; Injections - veterinary ; Male ; Multidetector Computed Tomography - methods ; Multidetector Computed Tomography - veterinary ; multidetector CT ; portal ; Prospective Studies ; Retrospective Studies</subject><ispartof>Veterinary radiology &amp; ultrasound, 2018-11, Vol.59 (6), p.677-686</ispartof><rights>2018 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Veterinary Radiology</rights><rights>2018 The Authors. Veterinary Radiology &amp; Ultrasound published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Veterinary Radiology.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3609-373c87979626a10d1b2556e928cae14b62a1a961e5c9acbbe9c3c08a3eea61f53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3609-373c87979626a10d1b2556e928cae14b62a1a961e5c9acbbe9c3c08a3eea61f53</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8412-573X ; 0000-0002-6838-8430 ; 0000-0003-4175-4397 ; 0000-0001-6407-4963</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30192038$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Thierry, Florence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chau, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Makara, Mariano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Specchi, Swan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Auriemma, Edoardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Longo, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Handel, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwarz, Tobias</creatorcontrib><title>Vascular conspicuity differs among injection protocols and scanner types for canine multiphasic abdominal computed tomographic angiography</title><title>Veterinary radiology &amp; ultrasound</title><addtitle>Vet Radiol Ultrasound</addtitle><description>Multiphasic multidetector computed tomographic angiography is a standard diagnostic test for canine abdominal vascular disorders. Three imaging protocols have been previously described. The test‐bolus protocol allows precise timing but can be time consuming to perform. Bolus‐tracking software is fast and easy to use but can be problematic for exact timing of vascular phases. A recently described fixed‐injection‐duration protocol is not influenced by body weight and provides a wider temporal window for arterial acquisitions. Objectives of this retrospective and prospective, multicentric, method comparison study were to determine which of the three multidetector computed tomographic angiography protocols allows best vascular conspicuity of the canine abdomen and to assess the influence of different multidetector computed tomography (CT) scanners on study quality. Triple‐phase multidetector computed tomographic angiography canine abdominal studies from 30 dogs were retrospectively retrieved from three different institutions. Each institution performed one of the three computed tomographic angiography protocols (4‐row and 16‐row multidetector CT). Prospectively, the three protocols were also acquired with similar conditions on a 64‐row MDCT in 21 dogs. Main abdominal vessels were scored by blinded readers for each phase. The fixed‐injection‐duration protocol had the best combined arterial and portal vascular conspicuity on scanners of limited speed, while the test‐bolus protocol provided the best overall vascular conspicuity on 64‐row multidetector CT scanner. The quality of arterial studies performed on 64‐row MDCT scanner was improved compared to the ones performed on four‐ to 16‐row multidetector CT scanners. Findings supported the fixed‐injection‐duration protocol as the best compromise between an ideal portal vascular enhancement and an easily reproducible protocol on scanners with low and high number of detector rows.</description><subject>Abdomen - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>angiographic</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>arterial</subject><subject>Computed Tomography Angiography - methods</subject><subject>Computed Tomography Angiography - veterinary</subject><subject>dog</subject><subject>Dogs</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Injections - veterinary</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Multidetector Computed Tomography - methods</subject><subject>Multidetector Computed Tomography - veterinary</subject><subject>multidetector CT</subject><subject>portal</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><issn>1058-8183</issn><issn>1740-8261</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kM1K5jAUhoOMqKMu5gaGLMdFNT82aZaDqCMIgqjbcpqefkbapJO0Sm_Bq55oHXdmk4T34Tmcl5AfnB3zfE6e43zMhdJmi-xxfcqKSij-Lb9ZWRUVr-Qu-Z7SE2Oi1ELvkF3JuBFMVnvk9QGSnXuI1AafRmdnNy20dV2HMVEYgt9Q55_QTi54OsYwBRv6nPiWJgveY6TTMmKiXcgO8M4jHeZ-cuMjJGcpNG0YnIc-DxjGecKWTmEImwjj41vsN279LAdku4M-4eHHvU_uL87vzv4U1zeXV2e_rwsrFTOF1NJW2mijhALOWt6IslRoRGUB-WmjBHAwimNpDdimQWOlZRVIRFC8K-U--bV68zZ_Z0xTPbhkse_BY5hTLTjjQmsmWUaPVtTGkFLErh6jGyAuNWf1W_V1rr5-rz6zPz-0czNg-0n-7zoDJyvw4npcvjbVD7f3q_IfmeeSHg</recordid><startdate>201811</startdate><enddate>201811</enddate><creator>Thierry, Florence</creator><creator>Chau, Jennifer</creator><creator>Makara, Mariano</creator><creator>Specchi, Swan</creator><creator>Auriemma, Edoardo</creator><creator>Longo, Maurizio</creator><creator>Handel, Ian</creator><creator>Schwarz, Tobias</creator><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8412-573X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6838-8430</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4175-4397</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6407-4963</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201811</creationdate><title>Vascular conspicuity differs among injection protocols and scanner types for canine multiphasic abdominal computed tomographic angiography</title><author>Thierry, Florence ; Chau, Jennifer ; Makara, Mariano ; Specchi, Swan ; Auriemma, Edoardo ; Longo, Maurizio ; Handel, Ian ; Schwarz, Tobias</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3609-373c87979626a10d1b2556e928cae14b62a1a961e5c9acbbe9c3c08a3eea61f53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Abdomen - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>angiographic</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>arterial</topic><topic>Computed Tomography Angiography - methods</topic><topic>Computed Tomography Angiography - veterinary</topic><topic>dog</topic><topic>Dogs</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Injections - veterinary</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Multidetector Computed Tomography - methods</topic><topic>Multidetector Computed Tomography - veterinary</topic><topic>multidetector CT</topic><topic>portal</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Thierry, Florence</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chau, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Makara, Mariano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Specchi, Swan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Auriemma, Edoardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Longo, Maurizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Handel, Ian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schwarz, Tobias</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley_OA刊</collection><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Backfiles (Open Access)</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Veterinary radiology &amp; ultrasound</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Thierry, Florence</au><au>Chau, Jennifer</au><au>Makara, Mariano</au><au>Specchi, Swan</au><au>Auriemma, Edoardo</au><au>Longo, Maurizio</au><au>Handel, Ian</au><au>Schwarz, Tobias</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Vascular conspicuity differs among injection protocols and scanner types for canine multiphasic abdominal computed tomographic angiography</atitle><jtitle>Veterinary radiology &amp; ultrasound</jtitle><addtitle>Vet Radiol Ultrasound</addtitle><date>2018-11</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>59</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>677</spage><epage>686</epage><pages>677-686</pages><issn>1058-8183</issn><eissn>1740-8261</eissn><abstract>Multiphasic multidetector computed tomographic angiography is a standard diagnostic test for canine abdominal vascular disorders. Three imaging protocols have been previously described. The test‐bolus protocol allows precise timing but can be time consuming to perform. Bolus‐tracking software is fast and easy to use but can be problematic for exact timing of vascular phases. A recently described fixed‐injection‐duration protocol is not influenced by body weight and provides a wider temporal window for arterial acquisitions. Objectives of this retrospective and prospective, multicentric, method comparison study were to determine which of the three multidetector computed tomographic angiography protocols allows best vascular conspicuity of the canine abdomen and to assess the influence of different multidetector computed tomography (CT) scanners on study quality. Triple‐phase multidetector computed tomographic angiography canine abdominal studies from 30 dogs were retrospectively retrieved from three different institutions. Each institution performed one of the three computed tomographic angiography protocols (4‐row and 16‐row multidetector CT). Prospectively, the three protocols were also acquired with similar conditions on a 64‐row MDCT in 21 dogs. Main abdominal vessels were scored by blinded readers for each phase. The fixed‐injection‐duration protocol had the best combined arterial and portal vascular conspicuity on scanners of limited speed, while the test‐bolus protocol provided the best overall vascular conspicuity on 64‐row multidetector CT scanner. The quality of arterial studies performed on 64‐row MDCT scanner was improved compared to the ones performed on four‐ to 16‐row multidetector CT scanners. Findings supported the fixed‐injection‐duration protocol as the best compromise between an ideal portal vascular enhancement and an easily reproducible protocol on scanners with low and high number of detector rows.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>30192038</pmid><doi>10.1111/vru.12679</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8412-573X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6838-8430</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4175-4397</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6407-4963</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1058-8183
ispartof Veterinary radiology & ultrasound, 2018-11, Vol.59 (6), p.677-686
issn 1058-8183
1740-8261
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2101277030
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection
subjects Abdomen - diagnostic imaging
angiographic
Animals
arterial
Computed Tomography Angiography - methods
Computed Tomography Angiography - veterinary
dog
Dogs
Female
Injections - veterinary
Male
Multidetector Computed Tomography - methods
Multidetector Computed Tomography - veterinary
multidetector CT
portal
Prospective Studies
Retrospective Studies
title Vascular conspicuity differs among injection protocols and scanner types for canine multiphasic abdominal computed tomographic angiography
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T03%3A09%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Vascular%20conspicuity%20differs%20among%20injection%20protocols%20and%20scanner%20types%20for%20canine%20multiphasic%20abdominal%20computed%20tomographic%20angiography&rft.jtitle=Veterinary%20radiology%20&%20ultrasound&rft.au=Thierry,%20Florence&rft.date=2018-11&rft.volume=59&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=677&rft.epage=686&rft.pages=677-686&rft.issn=1058-8183&rft.eissn=1740-8261&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/vru.12679&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2101277030%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3609-373c87979626a10d1b2556e928cae14b62a1a961e5c9acbbe9c3c08a3eea61f53%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2101277030&rft_id=info:pmid/30192038&rfr_iscdi=true