A novel food-based negative oral contrast agent compared with two conventional oral contrast agents in abdominal CT: a three-arm parallel blinded randomised controlled single-centre trial
Peter Leander, Georgios Stathis, Lucia Casal-Dujat, Karolina Boman, Ingvar Adnerhill, Jan Marsal, Olof Böök, Thomas Fork, Peter Leander, Georgios Stathis, Lucia Casal-Dujat, Karolina Boman, Ingvar Adnerhill, Jan Marsal, Olof Böök, Thomas Fork
Abstract
Background: A negative oral contrast agent (OCA) has been long sought for, to better delineate the bowel and visualise surrounding structures. Lumentin® 44 (L44) is a new OCA formulated to fill the entire small bowel. The aim of this study was to compare L44 with positive and neutral conventional OCA in abdominal computed tomography (CT).
Methods: Forty-five oncologic patients were randomised to receive either L44 or one of the two comparators (MoviPrep® or diluted Omnipaque®). Abdominal CT examinations with intravenous contrast agent were acquired according to standard protocols. The studies were read independently by two senior radiologists.
Results: The mean intraluminal Hounsfield units (HU)-values of regions-of-interest (ROIs) for each subsegment of small bowel and treatment group were -404.0 HU for L44, 166.1 HU for Omnipaque®, and 16.7 HU for MoviPrep® (L44 versus Omnipaque, p < 0.001: L44 versus MoviPrep p < 0.001; Omnipaque versus MoviPrep, p = 0.003). Adverse events, only mild, using L44 were numerically fewer than for using conventional oral contrast agents. Visualisation of abdominal structures beyond the small bowel was similar to the comparators.
Conclusions: L44 is a negative OCA with luminal radiodensity at approximately -400 HU creating a unique small bowel appearance on CT scans. The high bowel wall-to-lumen contrast may enable improved visualisation in a range of pathologic conditions. L44 showed a good safety profile and was well accepted by patients studied.
Trial registration: EudraCT (2017-002368-42) and in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03326518).
Keywords: Contrast media; Intestine (small); Iohexol; MoviPrep; Tomography (x-ray computed).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors PL, GS, JM, and KB have nothing to declare. LCD, IA, OB, and TF are together minor shareholders in Lument AB.
© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.
Figures
References
- ACR–SPR (2016) Practice parameter for the performance of computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and computed tomography (CT) of the pelvis. . Revised 2021
- Basile J, Kenny JF, Khodorkovsky B, et al (2018) Effects of eliminating routine use of oral contrast for computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis: a pilot study. Clin Imaging 49:159–162. 10.1016/j.clinimag.2018.03.002
- Taylor MB, Bromham NR, Arnold SE. Carcinoma of unknown primary: key radiological issues from the recent National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:661–671. doi: 10.1259/bjr/75018360.
- Pickhardt PJ. Positive oral contrast material for abdominal CT: current clinical indications and areas of controversy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;215:69–78. doi: 10.2214/AJR.19.21989.
- Fork FT, Aabakken L (2007) Capsule enteroscopy and radiology of the small intestine. Eur Radiol 17:3103–3111. 10.1007/s00330-007-0718-766.
- Fork FT, Karlsson N, Kadhem S, Ohlsson B. Small bowel enteroclyses with magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in patients with failed and uncertained passage of a patency capsule. BMC Med Imaging Feb. 2012;12:3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2342-12-3.
- Megibow AJ, Babb JS, Hecht EM, et al (2006) Evaluation of bowel distention and bowel wall appearance by using neutral oral contrast agent for multi-detector row CT. Radiology 238:87–95. 10.1148/radiol.2381041985
- Paulsen SR, Huprich JE, Fletcher JG, et al (2006) CT enterography as a diagnostic tool in evaluating small bowel disorders: review of clinical experience with over 700 cases. Radiographics 26:641–657; discussion 657-662. 10.1148/rg.263055162
- Berther R, Patak MA, Eckhardt B, Erturk SM, Zollikofer CL. Comparison of neutral oral contrast versus positive oral contrast medium in abdominal multidetector CT. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1902–1909. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-0958-1.
- Baldwin GN. Computed tomography of the pancreas: negative contrast medium. Radiology. 1978;128:827–828. doi: 10.1148/128.3.827.
- Raptopoulos V, Davis MA, Davidoff A, et al (1987) Fat-density oral contrast agent for abdominal CT. Radiology 164:653–656. 10.1148/radiology.164.3.3615862
- Thompson SE, Raptopoulos V, Sheiman RL, McNicholas MM, Prassopoulos P. Abdominal helical CT: milk as a low-attenuation oral contrast agent. Radiology. 1999;211:870–875. doi: 10.1148/radiology.211.3.r99jn25870.
- Ramsay DW, Markham DH, Morgan B, Rodgers PM, Liddicoat AJ. The use of dilute Calogen as a fat density oral contrast medium in upper abdominal computed tomography, compared with the use of water and positive oral contrast media. Clin Radiol. 2001;56:670–673. doi: 10.1053/crad.2001.0772.
- Wei X, Zhu J, Gong H, Xu J, Xu Y. A novel foam fluid negative contrast medium for clear visualization of the colon wall in CT imaging. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2011;6:465–473. doi: 10.1002/cmmi.446.
- Leander P, Adnerhill I, Böök O, Casal-Dujat L, Stathis G, Fork T. A novel food based oral contrast agent with negative Hounsfield units for demarcation of small bowel loops on abdominal CT. Acta Radiol. 2021;62:1559–1566. doi: 10.1177/0284185120973620.
- Minordi LM, Vecchioli A, Mirk P, Bonomo L (2011) CT enterography with polyethylene glycol solution vs CT enteroclysis in small bowel disease. Br J Radiol 84:112–119. 10.1259/bjr/71649888
- Clason DL, Dormody TJ (1994) Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type items. J Agric Educ 35:31–35
- Allen E, Seaman CA. Likert scales and data analyses. Q Progr. 2007;40:64–65.
- Wang J, Nguyen AV, Farrokhpay S. A critical review of the growth, drainage and collapse of foams. Adv Colloid Interface Sci. 2016;228:55–70. doi: 10.1016/j.cis.2015.11.009.
- Hill C, Eastoe J. Foams: from nature to industry. Adv Colloid Interface Sci. 2017;247:496–513. doi: 10.1016/j.cis.2017.05.013.
Source: PubMed