Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
To assess the ability of dual-energy CT (DECT) to separate intravenous contrast of bowel wall from intraluminal contrast, we scanned 16 rabbits on a clinical DECT scanner: n = 3 using only iodinated intravenous contrast, and n = 13 double-contrast enhanced scans using iodinated intravenous contrast and experimental enteric non-iodinated contrast agents in the bowel lumen (five bismuth, four tungsten, and four tantalum based). Representative image pairs from conventional CT images and DECT iodine density maps of small bowel (116 pairs from 232 images) were viewed by four abdominal imaging attending radiologists to independently score each comparison pair on a visual analog scale (-100 to +100%) for (1) preference in small bowel wall visualization and (2) preference in completeness of intraluminal enteric contrast subtraction. Median small bowel wall visualization was scored 39 and 42 percentage points (95% CI 30-44% and 36-45%, both p < 0.001) higher for double-contrast DECT than for conventional CT with enteric tungsten and tantalum contrast, respectively. Median small bowel wall visualization for double-contrast DECT was scored 29 and 35 percentage points (95% CI 20-35% and 33-39%, both p < 0.001) higher with enteric tungsten and tantalum, respectively, than with bismuth contrast. Median completeness of intraluminal enteric contrast subtraction in double-contrast DECT iodine density maps was scored 28 and 29 percentage points (95% CI 15-31% and 28-33%, both p < 0.001) higher with enteric tungsten and tantalum, respectively, than with bismuth contrast. Results suggest that in vivo double-contrast DECT with iodinated intravenous and either tantalum- or tungsten-based enteric contrast provides better visualization of small bowel than conventional CT. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Rathnayake et al. (Thu,) studied this question.