Contrast medium injection protocols for coronary CT angiography: should contrast medium volumes be tailored to body weight or body surface area?

AIM To compare the uniformity and image quality between contrast media injection protocols adjusted for patient body weight (BW) versus body surface area (BSA) during coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography (CCTA). MATERIALS AND METHODS Consecutive patients (n=489) with suspected coronary artery disease were randomised prospectively to one of two CCTA protocols. In the BW protocol (n=245), patients received individualised iodine delivery rates (≤50 kg: 1 g/s; 51–60 kg: 1.2 g/s; 61–70 kg: 1.4 g/s; 71–80 kg: 1.6 g/s; 81–90 kg: 1.8 g/s; 91–100 kg: 2 g/s; >100 kg: 2.2 g/s). In the BSA protocol (n=244), patients received 9,600 mg iodine/m2 of contrast medium over 12 seconds. Attenuation and image noise were measured. Signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were calculated. Image quality was scored. Attenuation was assessed for correlation with BW and BSA using linear regression. RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences in mean arterial attenuation (396.8±47.6 versus 395.8±42.2 HU, p=0.804; 95% confidence interval: –7 to 9), image noise (25.2±5.8 versus 25.5±5.4 HU; p=0.549), signal-to-noise ratio (16.7±4.4 versus 16.6±3.6; p=0.902), contrast-to-noise ratio (25.1±5.8 versus 25.8±7.4; p=0.258) or image quality scores (4.1±0.9 versus 4±0.9; p=0.770) between the BW and BSA protocols. There was no correlation between BW and aortic attenuation or between BSA and aortic attenuation (p=0.324 and 0.932, respectively). CONCLUSION The average contrast media attenuation and image quality was comparable between BW-adjusted protocol and BSA-adjusted protocol.