Impact of CT Injector Technology and Contrast Media Viscosity on Vascular Enhancement: Evaluation in a Circulation Phantom

Objective: To assess the impact of piston-based vs peristaltic injection system technology and contrast media viscosity on achievable iodine delivery rates (IDRs) and vascular enhancement in a pre-clinical study. Methods: Four injectors were tested: MEDRAD® Centargo, MEDRAD® Stellant, CT Exprès®, and CT motion™ using five contrast media [iopromide (300 and 370 mgI ml−1), iodixanol 320 mgI ml−1, iohexol 350 mgI ml−1, iomeprol 400 mgI ml−1]. Three experiments were performed evaluating achievable IDR and corresponding enhancement in a circulation phantom. Results: Experiment I: Centargo provided the highest achievable IDRs with all tested contrast media (p < 0.05). Iopromide 370 yielded the highest IDR with an 18G catheter (3.15 gI/s); iopromide 300 yielded the highest IDR with 20G (2.70 gI/s) and 22G (1.65 gI/s) catheters (p < 0.05). Experiment II: with higher achievable IDRs, piston-based injectors provided significantly higher peak vascular enhancement (up to 48% increase) than the peristaltic injectors with programmed IDRs from 1.8 to 2.4 gI/s (p < 0.05). Experiment III: with programmed IDRs (e.g. 1.5 gI/s) achievable by all injection systems, Centargo, with sharper measured bolus shape, provided significant increases in enhancement of 34–73 HU in the pulmonary artery with iopromide 370 (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The tested piston-based injection systems combined with low viscosity contrast media provide higher achievable IDRs and higher peak vascular enhancement than the tested peristaltic-based injectors. With equivalent IDRs, Centargo provides higher peak vascular enhancement due to improved bolus shape. Advances in knowledge: This paper introduces a new parameter to compare expected performance among contrast media: the concentration/viscosity ratio. Additionally, it demonstrates previously unexplored impacts of bolus shape on vascular enhancement.

Enhancement and Segmentation Workflow for the Developing Zebrafish Vasculature

Zebrafish have become an established in vivo vertebrate model to study cardiovascular development and disease. However, most published studies of the zebrafish vascular architecture rely on subjective visual assessment, rather than objective quantification. In this paper, we used state-of-the-art light sheet fluorescence microscopy to visualize the vasculature in transgenic fluorescent reporter zebrafish. Analysis of image quality, vascular enhancement methods, and segmentation approaches were performed in the framework of the open-source software Fiji to allow dissemination and reproducibility. Here, we build on a previously developed image processing pipeline; evaluate its applicability to a wider range of data; apply and evaluate an alternative vascular enhancement method; and, finally, suggest a work-flow for successful segmentation of the embryonic zebrafish vasculature.

Experimental studies on artifacts and tumor enhancement on gadoxetic acid-enhanced arterial phase liver MRI in a rabbit VX2 tumor model

Background Rapid injection of gadoxetic acid is reported to produce more frequent artifacts and lower vascular enhancement on arterial phase liver magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, its effect on tumor enhancement and the mechanism of the artifacts remain unclear. Purpose To evaluate the effect of rapid injection of gadoxetic acid on artifacts and tumor enhancement during arterial phase liver MRI, and on arterial blood gases (ABGs) which may explain the cause of the artifacts. Material and Methods ABG analysis was performed in 13 free-breathing rabbits after rapid injection (1 mL/s; injection time = 0.6–0.8 s) of gadoxetic acid (0.025 mmol/kg). Dynamic liver MRI was performed in six anesthetized rabbits with VX2 tumors under a ventilation stoppage after rapid and slow injection (0.25 mL/s; injection time = 2.4–3.2 s) of gadoxetic acid. Artifacts and signal enhancement on arterial phase imaging were compared with those obtained after rapid injection of gadopentetic acid (Gd-DTPA, 0.1 mmol/kg) using a Friedman test or Kruskal–Wallis test. Results ABG analysis did not find any significant changes. Artifacts were not related to injection protocols ( P = 0.95). Aortic enhancement with slow injection of gadoxetic acid was significantly higher than that with rapid injection ( P < 0.05), and was comparable to that with Gd-DTPA injection. Tumor enhancement obtained with gadoxetic acid was not significantly different between rapid and slow injection, and was significantly lower than that with Gd-DTPA injection ( P < 0.05). Conclusion Rapid injection of gadoxetic acid did not affect ABGs and may not be the cause of the artifacts. It lowered vascular enhancement but not arterial tumor enhancement.