Loading…

Dual-energy CT iodine overlay improves efficiency of oral contrast leak assessment

Background Evaluation for gastrointestinal leak is a frequent imaging indication, and dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) with oral or rectally administered contrast can be used to improve efficiency and diagnostic confidence. Purpose To assess the value of the DECT iodine overlay (IO) reconstruc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Acta radiologica (1987) 2023-08, Vol.64 (8), p.2357-2362
Main Authors: Hinen, Shaun P, Griffith, Joseph P, Chamberlin, Jordan, Waltz, Jeffrey, Kocher, Madison, Krull, Veronica, Young, Tristan, Litvin, Cara B, Varga-Szemes, Akos, Hardie, Andrew D
Format: Article
Language:English
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Evaluation for gastrointestinal leak is a frequent imaging indication, and dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) with oral or rectally administered contrast can be used to improve efficiency and diagnostic confidence. Purpose To assess the value of the DECT iodine overlay (IO) reconstruction as a stand-alone image set compared to routine CT in assessing oral or rectal contrast leak from the gastrointestinal system. Material and Methods A blinded, retrospective audit study was performed by three readers who each interpreted 50 studies performed for assessment of oral or rectal contrast leak that were acquired using DECT. Each reader independently assessed both the routine CT images and the images of the reconstructed IO for contrast leak in random order with a six-week “wash-out period” between readings. Clinical follow-up provided the reference standard. Readers recorded the presence/absence of a leak, diagnostic confidence, image quality score, and interpretation time for each image set. Results Pooled data for overall accuracy in identification of a leak increased from 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.74–0.87) for routine CT to 0.91 (95% CI=0.85–0.95) with IO, and the area under the curve (AUC) was significantly higher for IO than routine CT (P = 0.015). Readers required significantly less time to interpret IO than routine CT (median improvement of 12.5 s per image using pooled data; P 
ISSN:0284-1851
1600-0455
DOI:10.1177/02841851231172771