Comparison of two Meglumine-Diatrizoate based bowel preparations for computed tomography colonography: Comparison of patient symptoms and bowel preparation quality. Issue 4 (November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wilson, S.; Thompson, J.D.
• Is Part Of: Radiography. Volume 26:Issue 4(2020)
• Page Start: e290
• Page End: e296
• Publication Date: 2020-11
• Subjects: Computed tomography colonography -- Meglumine-Diatrizoate -- Bowel preparation -- Visual grading; Diagnostic imaging -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Diagnostic Imaging -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- Periodicals; Radiotherapy -- Periodicals; Imagerie pour le diagnostic -- Périodiques; Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Cancer -- Radiothérapie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 616.0757
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2020.04.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1078-8174

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: To investigate the impact of two Meglumine-Diatrizoate based bowel preparation regimes for computed tomography colonography (CTC) on the patient experience and image quality. Methods: 100 patients consumed Meglumine-Diatrizoate at 24 h and 12 h prior to the CTC examination. 50 patients followed regime 1 (50:50), 50 ml of Meglumine-Diatrizoate at both 24 and 12 h prior to the examination. 50 patients followed regime 2 (75:25), 75 ml of Meglumine-Diatrizoate at 24 h prior to the examination and 25 ml of Meglumine-Diatrizoate at 12 h prior to the examination. All patients completed a questionnaire to indicate the time of onset of adverse effects and when they were most severe. Five advanced practitioners assessed the image quality in a visual grading study. Visual grading characteristic (VGC) analysis was applied with regime 1 as the reference condition and regime 2 and test condition; test alpha was set at 0.05. Results: Image quality was assessed with successful bowel cleansing as the scoring criteria for the visual grading study. The bowel cleansing as provided by the two Meglumine-Diatrizoate regimes was revealed not to be statistically different, with the area under the VGC curve and 95% confidence intervals 0.487 (0.287, 0.701), p = 0.887. Patients taking the 75:25 bowel preparation experienced a shorter median time to the onset of adverse effects. Conclusion: There was no observed difference in Image quality criteria score for the two Meglumine-Diatrizoate based bowel preparation with more predictable adverse effects of Meglumine-Diatrizoate with the 75:25 preparation. Implications for practice: Providing patients with a higher contrast burden 24 h prior to CTC may have a positive impact on the patient experience without compromising image quality.