대한영상의학회지 (Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology)

  • 제84권4호
  • /
  • Pages.911-922
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1738-2637(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-2928(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

전산화단층촬영 소장조영술을 위한 희석된 폴리에틸렌 글리콜과 저밀도(0.1% w/v) 바륨 현탁액의 유용성 비교

Comparison of the Efficacy of Diluted Polyethylene Glycol and Low-Density (0.1% w/v) Barium Sulfate Suspension for CT Enterography

  • 김연정 (인제대학교 의과대학 해운대백병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 김승호 (인제대학교 의과대학 해운대백병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 백태욱 (인제대학교 의과대학 해운대백병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 박형인 (인제대학교 의과대학 해운대백병원 영상의학과)
  • Yeon Jung Kim (Department of Radiology, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital) ;
  • Seung Ho Kim (Department of Radiology, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital) ;
  • Tae Wook Baek (Department of Radiology, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital) ;
  • Hyungin Park (Department of Radiology, Inje University College of Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2022.10.20
  • 심사 : 2023.02.26
  • 발행 : 2023.07.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

목적 전산화단층촬영 소장조영술 준비를 위해서 사용된 중성 경구 조영제인 희석된 폴리에틸렌 글리콜 용액과 저밀도(0.1% w/v) 바륨 현탁액 사이의 소장 팽창과 부작용을 비교하였다. 대상과 방법 전산화단층촬영 소장조영술을 시행 받은 총 173명의 환자가 연구에 포함되었다. 50명의 환자는 바륨 현탁액을, 123명의 환자는 희석된 등삼투압의 폴리에틸렌 글리콜 용액을 사용하였다. 동일한 양인 1L를 투여하였다. 두 명의 독립된 검토자가 공장과 회장에서 5점 척도로 소장 팽창을 평가하였다. 두 그룹 간의 부작용 비교를 위해서 경구 조영제 투입 후 환자들이 구역, 구토, 설사 및 복통을 호소하는지 여부에 대하여 조사하였다. 결과 회장과 공장에서, 희석된 폴리에틸렌 글리콜 용액은 두 검토자 모두에서 바륨 현탁액과 차이가 없었다(회장: 검토자 1, 중앙값, 4; 4, 사분위수 범위, 3-4; 3-4, p = 0.997; 검토자 2, 중앙값, 4; 4, 사분위수 범위, 3.3-4.0; 3-4, p = 0.064, 공장: 검토자 1, 중앙값, 2; 2, 사분위수 범위, 2-3; 2-3, p = 0.560; 검토자 2, 중앙값, 3; 2, 사분위수 범위, 2-3; 2-3, p = 0.192). 모든 환자에서 두 가지 경구 조영제 투여 후 즉각적인 부작용을 호소하지 않았다. 결론 희석된 폴리에틸렌 글리콜 용액은 바륨 현탁액과 비교하여 소장 팽창에 차이가 없고, 검사 직후 부작용이 없으므로, 유용한 대체제가 될 수 있다.

Purpose To compare small bowel distension and side effects between a diluted polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution and a low-density (0.1% w/v) barium sulfate suspension (LDBSS) for CT enterography (CTE) preparation. Materials and Methods Total 173 consecutive patients who underwent CTE were enrolled in this study. The LDBSS (1 L) was used in 50 patients, and the diluted iso-osmotic PEG solution (1 L) was used in 123 patients. Two blinded radiologists independently scored jejunal and ileal distensions on a 5-point scale. To compare side effects between the two groups, the patients reported whether they had immediate complications after the administration of the oral contrast media. Results For ileal and jejunal distension, the diluted PEG solution showed no difference from the LDBSS for either reader (ileum: reader 1, median, 4; 4, interquartile range, 3-4; 3-4, p = 0.997; reader 2, median, 4; 4, interquartile range, 3.3-4.0; 3-4, p = 0.064; jejunum: reader 1, median, 2; 2, interquartile range, 2-3; 2-3, p = 0.560; reader 2, median, 3; 2, interquartile range, 2-3; 2-3, p = 0.192). None of the patients complained of immediate complications following administration of either of the oral contrast media. Conclusion The diluted PEG solution showed comparable bowel distension compared to LDBSS and no immediate side effects; thus, it can be a useful alternative.

키워드

과제정보

This study was supported by a grant from TAEJOON Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

참고문헌

  1. Paulsen SR, Huprich JE, Fletcher JG, Booya F, Young BM, Fidler JL, et al. CT enterography as a diagnostic tool in evaluating small bowel disorders: review of clinical experience with over 700 cases. Radiographics 2006;26:641-657  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.263055162
  2. Wong J, Roger M, Moore H. Performance of two neutral oral contrast agents in CT enterography. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2015;59:34-38  https://doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12256
  3. Huprich JE, Fletcher JG. CT enterography: principles, technique and utility in Crohn's disease. Eur J Radiol 2009;69:393-397  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.11.014
  4. Markova I, Kluchova K, Zboril R, Mashlan M, Herman M. Small bowel imaging - still a radiologic approach? Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2010;154:123-132  https://doi.org/10.5507/bp.2010.019
  5. Ilangovan R, Burling D, George A, Gupta A, Marshall M, Taylor SA. CT enterography: review of technique and practical tips. Br J Radiol 2012;85:876-886  https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/27973476
  6. Furukawa A, Saotome T, Yamasaki M, Maeda K, Nitta N, Takahashi M, et al. Cross-sectional imaging in Crohn disease. Radiographics 2004;24:689-702  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.243035120
  7. Gottumukkala RV, LaPointe A, Sargent D, Gee MS. Comparison of three oral contrast preparations for magnetic resonance enterography in pediatric patients with known or suspected Crohn disease: a prospective randomized trial. Pediatr Radiol 2019;49:889-896  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-019-04378-5
  8. Kolbe AB, Fletcher JG, Froemming AT, Sheedy SP, Koo CW, Pundi K, et al. Evaluation of patient tolerance and small-bowel distention with a new small-bowel distending agent for enterography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;206:994-1002  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15260
  9. Bekendam MIJ, Puylaert CAJ, Phoa SKSS, Nio CY, Stoker J. Shortened oral contrast preparation for improved small bowel distension at MR enterography. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017;42:2225-2232  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1133-4
  10. Schiller LR, Emmett M, Santa Ana CA, Fordtran JS. Osmotic effects of polyethylene glycol. Gastroenterology 1988;94:933-941  https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-5085(88)90550-1
  11. Khorasanynejad R, Norouzi A, Roshandel G, Besharat S. Bowel preparation for a better colonoscopy using polyethylene glycol or C-lax: a double blind randomized clinical trial. Middle East J Dig Dis 2017;9:212-217  https://doi.org/10.15171/mejdd.2017.76
  12. Ha J, Park SH, Son JH, Kang JH, Ye BD, Park SH, et al. Is the mixed use of magnetic resonance eterography and computed tomography enterography adequate for routine periodic follow-up of bowel inflammation in patients with Crohn's disease? Korean J Radiol 2022;23:30-41  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2021.0072
  13. Ahn SE, Park SJ, Moon SK, Lim JW, Lee DH, Ko YT, et al. Comparative study between axial and coronal planes of CT enterography in evaluation of disease activity and complications of Crohn disease. J Korean Soc Radiol 2013;68:107-115  https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2013.68.2.107
  14. Lim BK, Bux SI, Rahmat K, Lam SY, Liew YW. Evaluation of bowel distension and mural visualisation using neutral oral contrast agents for multidetector-row computed tomography. Singapore Med J 2012;53:732-736 
  15. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968;70:213-220  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026256
  16. Zheng MQ, Zeng QS, Yu YQ, Ji R, Li YY, Zhang MM, et al. Evaluation of the performance of two neutral oral contrast agents in computed tomography enterography: a randomized controlled trial. J Dig Dis 2020;21:112-119  https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-2980.12835
  17. Singla D, Chandak S, Malhotra A, Agarwal A, Raman T, Chaudhary M. CT enterography using four different endoluminal contrast agents: a comparative study. J Gestrointest Abdom Radiol 2022;5:16-22 
  18. Young BM, Fletcher JG, Booya F, Paulsen S, Fidler J, Johnson CD, et al. Head-to-head comparison of oral contrast agents for cross-sectional enterography: small bowel distention, timing, and side effects. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2008;32:32-38  https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e318061961d
  19. Kolbe AB, Haas LA, Bartlett DJ, Iyer VR, Thomas KB, Tung J, et al. Comparison of two small bowel distending agents for enterography in pediatric small bowel imaging. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019;44:3252-3262  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02102-3
  20. Dillman JR, Towbin AJ, Imbus R, Young J, Gates E, Trout AT. Comparison of two neutral oral contrast agents in pediatric patients: a prospective randomized study. Radiology 2018;288:245-251 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018173039