• J Matthias Kerl, Thomas Lehnert, Boris Schell, Boris Bodelle, Martin Beeres, Volkmar Jacobi, Thomas J Vogl, and Ralf W Bauer.
• Institute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Clinic of the Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt, Germany. matthias.kerl@gmail.com
• Eur J Radiol. 2012 Oct 1; 81 (10): 2887-91.

PurposeTo compare test bolus and bolus tracking for the determination of scan delay of high-pitch dual-source CT pulmonary angiography in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism using 50 ml of contrast material.Materials And MethodsData of 80 consecutive patients referred for CT pulmonary angiography were evaluated. All scans were performed on a 128-channel dual-source CT scanner with a high-pitch protocol (pitch 3.0, 100 kV, 180 mAs). Contrast enhancement was achieved by injecting 50 ml of iomeprol followed by a saline chaser of 50 ml injected at a rate of 4 ml/s. The scan delay was determined using either the test bolus (n=40) or bolus tracking (n=40) technique. Test bolus required another 15 ml CM to determine time to peak enhancement of the contrast bolus within the pulmonary trunk. Attenuation profiles in the pulmonary trunk and on segmental level as well as in the ascending aorta were measured to evaluate the timing techniques. Additionally, overall image quality was evaluated.ResultsIn all patients an adequate and homogeneous contrast enhancement of more than 250 HU was achieved in the pulmonary arteries. No statistically significant difference between test bolus and bolus tracking was found regarding attenuation of the pulmonary arteries or overall image quality. However, using bolus tracking 15 ml CM less was injected.ConclusionA homogeneous opacification of the pulmonary arteries and sufficient image quality can be achieved with both the bolus tracking and test bolus techniques with significant lower contrast doses compared to conventional contrast material injection protocols.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

19 keywords...

hide…