23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Objective and Subjective Intra-patient Comparison of Iohexol versus Diatrizoate for Bowel Preparation Quality at CT Colonography

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To objectively and subjectively compare nonionic iohexol and ionic diatrizoate iodinated oral contrast as part of a cathartic bowel regimen within the same CT colonography (CTC) cohort, with otherwise identical preparations.

          Materials and Methods

          In our IRB-approved retrospective study, 46 asymptomatic adults (mean age, 59.4 years; 26M/20F) returning for follow-up CTC over a 9-month interval underwent the same bowel preparation with the exception of 75 ml iohexol 350 (Omnipaque) in place of 60 ml diatrizoate (Gastrografin). All other preparation components (bisacodyl, magnesium citrate, and 2% barium) remained constant. Objective volumetric analysis of residual colonic fluid volume and fluid attenuation was performed. Additionally, two radiologists experienced with CTC, blinded to the specific bowel preparation, scored each of 6 colonic segments for adherent residual solid stool using a previously validated 4-point scale (0 for no stool; 1–3 for increasing residual stool). Paired t-test was used for comparison of the cohorts.

          Results

          No clear clinically-meaningful difference was found between the two preparations on overall objective or subjective evaluation. Mean (±SD) residual fluid volume was 173±126 ml with the iohexol preparation and 130±79 ml with the diatrizoate prep (p=0.02). Mean total colonic stool score was 2.5 (0.42/segment) with iohexol and 2.3 (0.38/segment) with diatrizoate (p=0.69). Mean (±SD) fluid attenuation was higher with iohexol (849±270HU) compared with diatrizoate (732±168HU) (p=0.03).

          Conclusions

          Based on this direct intra-patient comparison, we found that oral iohexol is a suitable alternative to diatrizoate for fluid tagging as part of a cathartic bowel preparation at CTC. Because this nonionic tagging agent is more palatable, less expensive, and likely safer than ionic diatrizoate, our CTC program now utilizes iohexol as the standard recommended regimen.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          7708173
          377
          AJR Am J Roentgenol
          AJR Am J Roentgenol
          AJR. American journal of roentgenology
          0361-803X
          1546-3141
          11 May 2017
          24 March 2016
          June 2016
          18 July 2017
          : 206
          : 6
          : 1202-1207
          Affiliations
          The University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, WI
          Author notes
          Corresponding author: Perry J. Pickhardt, MD, Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, E3/311 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Ave., Madison, WI 53792-3252, ppickhardt2@ 123456uwhealth.org , phone: 608-263-9028, fax: 608-263-0140
          Article
          PMC5514555 PMC5514555 5514555 nihpa873454
          10.2214/AJR.15.15373
          5514555
          27010251
          fdcad19c-f473-4e3e-aea9-03cf2aca9222
          History
          Categories
          Article

          Comments

          Comment on this article