There is a newer version of the record available.

Published January 25, 2020 | Version v1
Journal article

Computed tomography and magnetic resonance enterography protocols and techniques: survey of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Crohn's Disease Disease-Focused Panel

  • 1. Cleveland Clinic. Imaging Institute (United States)
  • 2. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. Department of Radiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (United States)
  • 3. Rhode Island Hospital. Department of Radiology (United States)
  • 4. New York University Langone Health. Department of Radiology (United States)
  • 5. Mayo Clinic. Department of Radiology (United States)
  • 6. University of Michigan Health System. Department of Radiology (United States)
  • 7. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia & University of Pennsylvania. Department of Radiology (United States)
  • 8. Mayo Clinic. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (United States)
  • 9. Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Department of Radiology (United States)
  • 10. Harvard Medical School. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital (United States)
  • 11. University of Florida College of Medicine. Department of Radiology (United States)
  • 12. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. Department of Radiology (United States)
  • 13. Duke University Medical Center. Department of Radiology (United States)
  • 14. University of Ulsan College of Medicine. Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center (Korea, Republic of)
  • 15. Hospital Clínic of Barcelona. Department of Radiology (Spain)
  • 16. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Department of Radiology (United States)
  • 17. University College London. Centre for Medical Imaging (United Kingdom)
  • 18. University of California. Department of Radiology (United States)

Description

Purpose

To survey Society of Abdominal Radiology Crohn's Disease (CD) Disease-Focused Panel (DFP) members to understand state-of-the-art CT/MR enterography (CTE/MRE) protocols and variability between institutions.

Methods

This study was determined by an institutional review board to be "exempt" research. The survey consisted of 70 questions about CTE/MRE patient preparation, administration of contrast materials, imaging techniques, and other protocol details. The survey was administered to DFP members using SurveyMonkey® (Surveymonkey.com). Descriptive statistical analyses were performed.

Results

Responses were received from 16 DFP institutions (3 non-USA, 2 pediatric); 15 (94%) were academic/university-based. 10 (63%) Institutions image most CD patients with MRE; 4 (25%) use CTE and MRE equally. Hypoperistaltic medication is given for MRE at 13 (81%) institutions versus only 2 (13%) institutions for CTE. Most institutions have a technologist or nurse monitor oral contrast material drinking (n = 12 for CTE, 75%; n = 11 for MRE, 69%). 2 (13%) institutions use only dual-energy capable scanners for CTE, while 9 (56%) use either a single-energy or dual-energy scanner based on availability. Axial CTE images are reconstructed at 2–3 mm thickness at 8 (50%) institutions, > 3 mm at 5 (31%), and < 2 mm at 3 (19%) institutions. 13 (81%) institutions perform MRE on either 1.5 or 3T scanners without preference. All institutions perform MRE multiphase postcontrast imaging (median = 4 phases), ranging from 20 to 600 s after contrast material injection.

Conclusion

CTE and MRE protocol knowledge from DFP institutions can help radiology practices optimize/standardize protocols, potentially improving image quality and patient outcomes, permitting objective comparisons between examinations, and facilitating research.

Additional details

Identifiers

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Abdominal Radiology (Online)
Journal Volume
45
Journal Issue
4
Journal Page Range
p. 1011-1017
ISSN
2366-0058

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) 2020 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020