Key result
Test bolus shows no diagnostic benefit over bolus tracking in CT pulmonary angiography.
Why the study?
The study aimed to assess qualitative indices and enhancement rate of CTPA in suspected pulmonary embolism patients using Test bolus and Bolus-tracking techniques.
RCT (n=52)
Random Allocation Software
No
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to assess the qualitative indices and enhancement rate of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism using Test bolus and Bolus-tracking techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two patients with suspected pulmonary embolism that passed informed consent were randomly divided in the two groups. In each group, demographic characteristics, qualitative indices, and enhancement rate of CTPA were recorded. RESULTS: The diagnostic result obtained in majority of the participants in the two groups (88.5 % in Test bolus group vs. 73.1% in the Bolus tracking group). In the case of quantitative variables, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups (P > 0.05). The only statistically significant difference between the two groups is average of "X-ray dose". CONCLUSION: The results of our study show that there is no statistically significant difference between the Bolus Tracking and Test Bolus techniques for producing more homogeneous enhancement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moradi et al. (2016) conducted an RCT in Suspected pulmonary embolism (n=52). Test bolus technique vs. Bolus-tracking technique was evaluated on Diagnostic result (p=0.159). There was no statistically significant difference in diagnostic results between the Test bolus and Bolus-tracking techniques (88.5% vs 73.1%, p=0.159) for CT pulmonary angiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: