English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To obtain the highest diagnostic information with least side effects when performing thoracic CT angiography (CTA) is challenging in young children. The current study aims to compare three contrast agent (CA) injection protocols regarding image quality and CA characteristic: a standard CTA, a fixed-bolus delay protocol, and the “microbolus technique (MBT)” developed in our institution. Seventy chest CTA scans of patients (<2 years) were divided into three groups. MBT was applied in group I, the standard protocol in group II and a fixed bolus delay in group III. Objective image quality was assessed by measuring peak enhancement, image noise, signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR). Two observers scored subjective image quality and artifacts. Significantly lower amounts of CA (mean ± SD) were used in the MBT group compared to Group II (9.0 ± 3.7 ml vs. 12.9 ± 4.5 ml). A lower, but still diagnostic (>400 HU) enhancement was registered in all major thoracic vessels in group I without significant differences regarding SNR and CNR in most regions (p < 0.05). The best scores for image quality and artifacts were reached in group I. All three chest CTA contrast injection protocols offered diagnostic vessel enhancement in young patients. MBT was associated with reduced image artifacts and less injected CA.

Chest CTA in children younger than two years – a retrospective comparison of three contrast injection protocols