Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2020.14.5.603

Analysis of Contrast Medium Dilution Rate for changes in Tube Current and SOD, which are Parameters of Lower Limb Angiography Examination  

Kong, Chang gi (Department of Radiology, Cheom dan Hospital)
Han, Jae Bok (Department of Radiological Science, Dongsin University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology / v.14, no.5, 2020 , pp. 603-612 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study has a purpose to look into the effect of the relationship between the Tube current (mA) and SOD(Source to Object Distance), which is a parameter of lower limb angiography examination, and the dilution rate of the contrast medium concentration (300, 320, 350) on the image. To that end, using 3 mm vessel model water phantom, a vessel model custom made in the size of peripheral vessel diameter, this study measured relationships between change of parameters, such as tube current (mA), SOD and varying concentrations (300, 320, 350) of contrast medium dilution into SNR and CNR values while analyzing the coefficients of variance(cv<10). The software used to measure SNR and CNR values was Image J 1.50i from NIH (National Institutes of Health, USA). MPV (mean pixel value) and SD (standard deviation) were used after verifying numerically the image signal for region of interest (ROI) and background on phantom from the DICOM (digital imaging and communications in medicine) 3.0 file transmitted to PACS. As to contrast medium dilution by the change of tube current, when 146 mA and 102 mA were compared, For both SNR and CNR, the coefficient of variation value was less than 10 until the section of CM: N/S dilution (100% ~ 30% : 70%) but CM: N/S dilution rate (20%: 80% ~ 10% : 90%) the coefficient of variation was 10 or more. As to contrast medium dilution by concentration for SOD change, when SOD's (32.5 cm and 22.5 cm) were compared,For both SNR and CNR, the coefficient of variation value was less than 10 until the section of CM: N/S dilution (100% ~ 30% : 70%) but CM: N/S dilution rate (20%: 80% ~ 10% : 90%) the coefficient of variation was 10 or more. As to contrast medium dilution by concentration for SOD change, when SOD's (32.5 cm and 12.5 cm) were compared,For both SNR and CNR, the coefficient of variation value was less than 10 until the section of CM: N/S dilution (100% ~ 30% : 70%) but CM: N/S dilution rate (20%: 80% ~ 10% : 90%) the coefficient of variation was 10 or more. As a result, set a low tube current value in other tests or procedures including peripheral angiography of the lower extremities in the intervention, and make the table as close as possible to the image receiver, and adjust the contrast agent concentration (300) to CM: N/S dilution (30%: 70%). ) Is suggested as the most efficient way to obtain images with an appropriate concentration while simultaneously reducing the burden on the kidney and the burden on exposure.
Keywords
Tube current (mA); SOD(Source to Object Distance); Coefficient of Variation value;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Y. S. Do, "Establishment of Standard of Safety Control of Angiographic Unit", Korea Food & Drug Administration Service R&D project, 2003.
2 http://www.ksn.or.kr/file/journal/701525435/1999/18603068.PDF/
3 Noboru Mizushima, Beth Levine, Ana Maria Cuervo, Daniel J. Klionsky, "Autophagy fights disease through cellular self-digestion", Nature, Vol. 451, No. 7182, pp. 1069-1075,2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature06639.   DOI
4 R. P. Karlsberg, S. Y. Dohad, R. Sheng, Iodixanol Peripheral CTA Study Investigator Panel, "Contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) following intra-arterial administration of iodinated contrast media", Journal of Nephrology, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 658-666, 2010.
5 S. H. Kim, "A Convergence Study on effectiveness of contrast agent reduction by normal saline solution dilution in the computed tomography of arteries of lower limb", Journal of Digital Convergence, Vol. 13, No. 9, pp. 431-437, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2015.13.9.431   DOI
6 W. H. Bush, D. P. Swanson, "Acute reactions to intravascular contrast media; types, risk factors, recognition, and specific treatment", American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 157, No. 6, pp. 1153-1161, 1991.   DOI
7 M. J. Shin, Y. J. Cho, "Management of adverse reaction to iodinated radiocontrast media", Journal of the Korean medical association, Vol. 55, No. 8, pp. 779-790, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2012.55.8.779   DOI
8 Jeremiah R. Brown, John F. Robb, Clay A. Block, Anton C. Schoolwerth, Aaron V. Kaplan, Gerald T. OʼConnor, Richard J. Solomon, David J. Malenka, "Does Safe Dosing of Iodinated Contrast Prevent Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury?", Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 346-350, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.109.910638   DOI
9 S. J. Lee, Y. Park, D. H. Jeong, S. H. Ock, H. J. Hwang, H. S. Hwang, "A Study on the usefulness of Dilution of Contrast Media in CT Examinations", Korean Society Computed Tomographic Technology, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 161-167, 2011.
10 Y. K. Kim, M. S. Kim, S. Y. Lee, J. M. Lee, H. S. Lee, J. S. Jeong, M. G. Kim, "Comparison of the contrast effect of the amount and iodine concentration of CT contrast agent", Korean Society Computed Tomographic Technology, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 181-187, 2014.
11 J. H. Kim, J. H. Jeong, K. H. Kim, "Reduction of Contrast Volume in Head Angiography by MDCT", Korean Society Computed Tomographic Technology, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 117-121, 2008.
12 G. H. Kim, S. H. Lee, "A Study on the Optimum Amount of Contrast Media in Brain Angiography", Journal of Radiological Science and Technology, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 123-128, 2018.   DOI
13 https://www.genewsroom.com/sites/default/files/6362.pdf
14 H. R. Choi, W. H. Choi, S. C. Lee, Y. K. Ha, S. H. Kang, D. H. Kim, Y. J. Lee, "Evaluation of image quality for stent image with different dilution ratio of contrast agent in self-production vessel model on angiographic X-ray computed tomography(CT)", Optik, Vol. 143, pp. 180-187, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2017.06.068   DOI
15 S Jeff Shepard, Jihong Wang, Michael Flynn, Eric Gingold, Lee Goldman, Kerry Krugh, David L Leong, Eugene Mah, Kent Ogden, Donald Peck, Ehsan Samei, Charles E Willis, "An exposure indicator for digital radiography: AAPM Task Group 116 (Executive Summary)", Medical Physics, Vol.36, No. 7, pp. 2898-2914, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3121505   DOI
16 J. G. Lee, H. J. Kim, H. K. Lee, "Strategies for radiation dose optimization in medical radiation exposure", Public Health Weekly Report, Vol. 12, No. 32, pp. 1121-1131, 2019.
17 Beth A. Scbueler, "The AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: General Overview of Fluoroscopic Imaging", Radiographics, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 1115-1126, 2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.20.4.g00jl301115   DOI
18 https://rpop.iaea.org/RPOP/RPoP/Content/Documents/Whitepapers/poster-patient-radiation-protection.pdf.
19 https://www.nifds.go.kr/brd/m_15/view.do?seq=5821