RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the injection pressure-to-injection rate (IPIR) ratio for the early detection of contrast extravasation at the venipuncture site during contrast-enhanced computed tomography. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 57,528 patients who underwent contrast-enhanced computed tomography examinations in a single hospital. The power injector recorded the contrast injection pressure at 0.25-second intervals. We constructed logistic regression models using the IPIR ratio as the independent variable and extravasation occurrence as the dependent variable (IPIR ratio models) at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 seconds after the start of contrast administration. Univariate logistic regression models in which injection pressure is used as an independent variable (injection pressure models) were also constructed as a reference baseline. The performance of the models was evaluated with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Of the 57,528 cases, 46,022 were assigned to the training group and 11,506 were assigned to the test group, which included 112 extravasation cases (0.24%) in the training group and 28 (0.24%) in the test group. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for the IPIR ratio models and injection pressure models were 0.555 versus 0.563 at t = 1 (P = 0.270), 0.712 versus 0.678 at t = 2 (P = 0.305), 0.758 versus 0.693 at t = 3 (P = 0.032), 0.776 versus 0.688 at t = 4 (P = 0.005), 0.810 versus 0.699 at t = 5 (P = 0.002), and 0.811 versus 0.706 at t = 6 (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The IPIR ratio models perform better in detecting contrast extravasation at 3 to 6 seconds after the start of contrast administration than injection pressure models.
RESUMEN
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of practical preventive strategies (i.e., venous vulnerability assessment and prevention scan protocol rules) taken by our radiology team (radiology nurses, radiology technicians, radiologists) on reducing extravasation of contrast media (ECM) during CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 73,931 patients who underwent contrast-enhanced CT scans between January 2013 and December 2019 were retrospectively included. Venous vulnerability assessment by the radiology team began in 2015, and prevention scan protocol rules for the prevention of ECM were added in 2017. We defined each period as follows: 2013-2014, no prevention (Period A); 2015-2016, early prevention (Period B, venous vulnerability assessment only); and 2017-2019: late prevention (Period C, venous vulnerability assessment with prevention scan protocol rules). The incident reports, radiology reports, and medical records of patients in whom ECM occurred were reviewed. We compared the frequency of ECM during each period. RESULTS: ECM occurred in 0.39% (292/73,931) of the patients. The frequencies of ECM for Periods A, B, and C were 0.62% (121/19,505), 0.43% (89/20,847), and 0.24% (82/33,579), respectively. There were significant differences in the frequencies of ECM among the three periods (Chi-squared test, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Implementation of venous vulnerability assessment and prevention scan protocol rules by a radiology team can be a practical and simple solution to reduce the risk of ECM during CT.