http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2537-5066
Figures
Abstract
Objective
To compare the performance of an 18-gauge nonfenestrated catheter (18-NFC) with a 22-gauge fenestrated catheter (22-FC) for cardiac CT angiography (CCTA) in patients with suspected coronary heart disease.
Subjects and methods
74 consecutive patients imaged on a 2nd generation dual-source CT with arterial phase CCTA were included in this retrospective investigation to either an 18-NFC or 22-FC. In comparison to the 18-NFC, the 22-FC has three additional perforations for contrast agent dispersal proximal to the tip. We examined the two groups for differences in their average attenuation in the right and left ventricles (RV, LV) and in the atrium (RA, LA) as well as in the proximal right coronary artery (RCA) and the left main coronary artery (LM). The averages were calculated for both the 18-NFC and 22-FC.
Results
Catheters were successfully placed on the first attempt 97% (36/37) for 18-NFC and 95% (35/37) for the 22-FC. The following enhancement levels were measured: 22-FC (in Hounsfield-Units (HU)): RV = 203±29, LV = 523±36, RA = 198±29, LA = 519±38, RCA = 547±26, LM = 562±25; 18-NFC: RV = 146±26, LV = 464±32, RA = 141±24, LA = 438±35, RCA = 501±23, LM = 523±23; RV (p = 0,03), LV (p = 0.12), RA (p = 0.02), LA (p = 0.04), RCA (p = 0.3), LM (p = 0.33).
Conclusion
No significant differences in attenuation levels as well as in image quality of the coronary arteries were found between NFC and FC. Nevertheless, the 22-gauge FC examinations showed significantly higher attenuation in the left and right atrium as well as the right ventricle. Patients with poor venous access may benefit from a smaller gauge catheter that can deliver sufficiently high flow rates for CCTA.
Citation: Fischer AM, Riffel P, Henzler T, Schoepf UJ, Abadia AF, Bayer RR, et al. (2020) More holes, more contrast? Comparing an 18-gauge non-fenestrated catheter with a 22-gauge fenestrated catheter for cardiac CT. PLoS ONE 15(6): e0234311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234311
Editor: Carmine Pizzi, University of Bologna, ITALY
Received: September 3, 2019; Accepted: May 23, 2020; Published: June 8, 2020
Copyright: © 2020 Fischer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All data is uploaded to GitHub and accessible via the following URL: https://github.com/WhistlertheX/More-Holes-More-Contrast.
Funding: The Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine has research agreements with Siemens Healthcare GmbH. JS receives institutional research support from Astellas, Bayer, and Siemens. JS has received consulting fees and/or speaker honoraria from Bayer, Elucid BioImaging, General Electric, Guerbet, HeartFlow Inc., and Siemens. The University Medical Center Groningen receives institutional research support from Siemens. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. The other authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Competing interests: Dr. Schoenberg reports that the institute of clinical radiology and nuclear medicine has research agreements with Siemens Healthcare GmbH. Dr. Schoepf receives institutional research support from Astellas, Bayer, and Siemens. Dr. Schoepf has received consulting fees and or speaker honoraria from Bayer, Elucid BioImaging, GE, Guerbet, HeartFlow Inc., and Siemens. UMCG receives institutional research support from Siemens. The other authors have no conflict of interest to disclose. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Abbreviations: 18-NFC, 18-gauge non-fenestrated catheter; 22-FC, 22-gauge fenestrated catheter; CCTA, cardiac CT angiography; CT, Computed tomography; DSCT, dual-source computed tomography; FC, fenestrated catheter; HU, Hounsfield-Units; LA, left atrium; LM, Left main coronary artery; LV, left ventricle; NFC, non-fenestrated catheter; RA, right atrium; RCA, right coronary artery; ROI, regions of interest; RV, right ventricle; SD, standard deviations; WMA, World Medical Association
Introduction
Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) is an application that has traditionally required relatively high contrast media injection flow-rates [1–4]. Thus, for any type of CT angiographic study, adequate peripheral intravenous access is necessary to ensure diagnostic, high-quality image acquisition. Patients undergoing CCTA typically have risk factors including smoking, diabetes, as well as the diseases associated with metabolic syndrome [5, 6]. Unfortunately, these factors not only have a damaging effect on the central vascular system, but also on the peripheral veins. In particular, the long-term influence of a diabetogenic metabolism with associated micro- as well as macroangiopathy is known for an increased risk of complications during the establishment of venous access [7–9]. Especially extravasation of these vulnerable vessels is a common complication when using catheter sizes conventionally utilized for high flow-rate contrast protocols [10]. While this may be an inconvenience in the setting of an elective routine examination, in the context of emergency examinations, this may be especially challenging. Depending on the protocol, an adult CCTA examination requires a contrast flow rate of 5ml/s or above with a typical catheter size of 18-gauge for adequate contrasting to best ensure safety and optimal image quality [11–13]. Recent studies have shown that fenestrated catheters (FC), which differ from traditional non-fenestrated catheters (NFC) in that they have additional, smaller diameter outlets just proximal to the terminal outlet of the catheter, allow greater contrast media flow by redistributing and therefore reducing the pressure occurring at the tip [14]. Nonetheless, currently there is no evidence, if these small FCs result in equivalent attenuation levels when compared to standard, 18-gauge NFC at high flow-rates in the context of CCTA.
Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the performance of an 18-gauge NFC with a 22-gauge FC for CCTA in patients suspected coronary artery disease. Retrospective data evaluation will be used as part of an objective image quality analysis to determine whether sufficient contrast can be achieved with CCTA using smaller-lumen catheters. This is of particular clinical interest when elderly patients with multi comorbidities need a diagnostic CCTA, while this cohort often shows limited peripheral venous conditions that do not allow the application of conventional large-lumen catheters.
Materials and methods
Subjects
The study protocol of this retrospective investigation was approved by the local Institutional Review Board with a waiver of informed consent (approved through Mannheim Medical Faculty Ethics Committee 2. Approval Nr: 2013-818R-MA). The data was anonymized and retrospectively analyzed. Our study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki adopted by the World Medical Association (WMA) in 1964. A total of 74 patient CCTA examinations were analyzed in this study. The type of intravenous catheter used was identified via chart review along with data regarding catheter placement success and complications. Patients were included based on the following inclusion criteria: >18 years of age and CCTA performed between January 2016 and December 2017. Exclusion criteria were inadequate CCTA image quality, mainly caused by respiratory (n = 3) and cardiac motion artifacts artefacts (n = 2). These so-called "stair-steps-artefacts" can complicate sufficient density measurement at different locations and lead to incorrect measurement results.
Intravenous catheter placement
Two types of catheter were used: an 18-gauge NFC (18-gauge x 32 mm Venflon™ Pro Safety, Becton Dickinson) and a 22-gauge FC (22-gauge x 25 mm Nexiva™ Diffusics™ IV Catheter, Becton Dickinson). In comparison to the NFC, the FC has three additional outlets for contrast agent dispersal just proximal to the terminal outlet. For the 22-gauge, each of the additional outlets measures approximately 0.76 mm in length and 0.25 mm in width. Fig 1 shows a comparison of both catheter systems.
On the left side the catheter system with side holes is shown (22-gauge fenestrated). The figure above illustrates the flow technique after intravenous application as a model. On the righthand side a conventional catheter system (18-gauge non-fenestrated) with only one terminal hole is shown.
In our clinical routine, catheter placement is initially attempted in the antecubital region. In case of failed catheter placement, repeat attempts to each arm are made according to the patient’s tolerance. In cases where the catheter placement in the antecubital region was not successful, the examination was not included in the analysis.
Coronary computed tomography angiography-protocol
Scans were performed in maximum inspiration on a 2nd generation dual source CT scanner (Definition Flash, Siemens Healthineers, Forchheim, Germany) at 120 kVp. The scan parameters were as follows: 120 kVp tube voltage, 50 mAs reference tube current using automated tube current modulation (effective mAs = 64 ± 31), 0.3 s rotation time, pitch 0.6, 128 x 0.6mm detector collimation. All images were reconstructed with a slice thickness of 1.5mm. Location of the catheter, CT-protocol, infusion rate, contrast volume and any catheter-related complications were recorded. Example complications include: exceeding maximum pressure, rupture of the perfusor extension line, contrast extravasation, or activation of the high-pressure alarm.
Image quality assessment
Images were evaluated for both objective and subjective quality by a radiologist (8 years experiences in cardiovascular imaging). The aortic enhancement levels were measured by a CT-technologist using regions of interest (ROI) and controlled by a resident physician (2 years experiences in cardiovascular imaging). A ROI which covered 50% of the lumen was placed in the diaphragmatic section of the aorta. Additionally, the enhancement levels of both atria and ventricles were measured in the CCTA. For this purpose, the ROI was placed in the respective anatomical region in the axial sectional image plane in order to subsequently record the HU values (Fig 2).
Indication for CCTA due to intermittent chest pain; contrast medium application via 22-FC. Schematic presentation of the HU measurements taken via ROI in two different axial slices. Fig 2 A shows the HU measurement in the ascending aorta (blue) and in the LM (red). Fig 2 B shows the schematic HU measurement for the right (yellow) and left ventricle (black). CCTA = Coronary computed tomography angiography, FC = fenestrated catheter, HU = Hounsfield units, LM = left main coronary artery.
Statistical analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using dedicated software (JMP 12, SAS, Cary, USA).
Averages were calculated for both the standard 18-gauge NFC and 22-gauge FC. Categorical variables were expressed using frequencies and percentages.
For both the 18-gauge NFC and the 22-gauge FC attenuation values were measured and the mean averages and standard deviations (SD) were calculated. A Student t-test was obtained to determine if there was a significant difference between the groups regarding their average attenuation.
Comparison of infusion rate, contrast volume and exceedance of maximum pressure was performed using individual two-sample Student t-tests as well. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Patient examination of a total of 74 subjects (42 male) were included in this analysis. Between the 18-gauge NFC (n = 37) and the 22-gauge FC (n = 37) groups, there was no significant difference in age (p = 0.814), sex (p = 0.24), or contrast volume administered (p = 0.24) (Tables 1 and 2). The mean age of study participant was 55.9 ± 12.4 years (range: 18–81 years).
The maximum pressure preselected with our contrast media injector (325 psi) was exceeded more often with the 22-gauge FC catheters (22%, 8/37)) than with the 18-gauge NFC (3%, 1/37)). This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.0281).
Of note, there was an additional unexpected complication documented that occurred in the examination protocols: the extension line used, ruptured three times during contrast administration with 22-gauge fenestrated catheters (8%, 3/37). When this occurred, a new catheter was used to obtain intravenous access and the examination was attempted a second time with the same parameters. In all cases, the second examination attempt was successful (100%, 3/3). This failure rate was not statistically significant (p = 0.24).
In all 74 CT-scans the subjective image quality was assessed and deemed acceptable. The aortic and cardiac enhancements levels could be measured for every subject (100%, 74/74).
Regarding the mean attenuation, significantly higher values for the FC were found in the ROIs of the left atrium (Ø 438 HU vs 519 HU; p = 0.04), right atrium (Ø 140 HU vs 198 HU; p = 0.02) and right ventricle (Ø 146 HU vs 202 HU; p = 0.03). No significant differences in attenuation were found for the ROIs of the left ventricle (p = 0.12), aorta (p = 0.28), right coronary artery (p = 0.3) as well as the left coronary artery (p = 0.3). All data of the comparison is shown in Table 3 and Fig 3 as well.
Control = 18-gauge non-fenestrated catheter. Diffusics = 22-gauge fenestrated catheter. LV = left ventricle; LA = left atrium; RV = right ventricle; RA = right atrium; RCA = right coronary artery; LCA = left coronary artery.
Discussion
CCTA has become increasingly common in clinical practice as an essential diagnostic component [15–17]. Particularly with CT angiographies, increasingly faster acquisition times require adequate assurance of the contrast agent application in order to ensure suitable contrast concentration during the arterial phase. For this purpose, practical CT protocols with correspondingly fast infusion rates including a specified minimum intravenous catheter size are needed. However, especially in multimorbid patients with significant cardiovascular risk profile (hypertension, diabetes, prior cardiovascular events) and thus limited peripheral venous status, the placement of a suitable catheter in clinical practice can be challenging. Based on our results, we were able to show that a 22-gauge FC is not inferior to the intravenous 18-gauge NFC in terms of safety and contrast flow.
In addition, there were no extravasations in either group. Some evidence suggests, as Wienbeck et al points to, an increased rate of extravasation in small-lumen 22-gauge catheters in the context of increased contrast medium flow [11]. However, it has also been reported that the simultaneous presence of additional outlets reduces the risk of extravasation of contrast agent by spreading the prevailing maximum pressure and concomitant velocity prevailing at the catheter tip to the remaining outlets [18, 19]. This is also consistent with the results of Weber et al., who found a 9–30% reduction in the speed of a sidearm catheter using a phantom study, due to decreased shear wall tension when the catheter is in an oblique orientation to the vessel wall [14]. They examined a 16-gauge catheter with an 18-gauge catheter, which had a different number of side outlets (2, 4, 6 or 8 side outlets) and slots (2 or 4 slots each with 2.5 mm). Contrast agent velocities of 5 and 10 ml/s were generated to investigate the effect on the phantom. The authors found, that heavy wall load as well as the speed of the contrast medium at the tip area for catheters with side outlets decreased noticeably. The in vitro results of the previous study have been validated on adult subjects in our study. An extravasation did not occur in any of our 74 subjects in both groups after inspection and exclusion of venous splints. However, one of the major complications in this study was the frequent triggering of the pressure alarm by the contrast medium pump on the 22-gauge FC. This can be explained by the fact that the pressure limit was reached faster with FC than with NFC due to the smaller diameter at the same contrast medium flow rate. Nevertheless, the permissible maximum pressure for the catheter was not exceeded at any time.
Several studies have shown a reduced risk of venous tear and consecutive extravasation in the presence of additional side-outlets, in contrast to the classic single-distal-opening catheter system, where the additional outlets allow flow rate and pressure to be distributed over several openings [20, 21]. Daniel et al. also pointed to a more even pressure distribution in the presence of a higher number of side outlets, as this decreases the contrast agent pressure at the distal opening [22]. In the study, plastic hoses were used to model the flow of the end outlet and the side outlets of different catheter designs. A smaller catheter system that accommodates a reliable and safe contrast agent application with higher infusion rates could significantly expand the patient population and comfort. Such newly developed catheters were well suited for our CCTA-protocols.
Johnson et al. examined contrasting of the aorta with an 18-gauge NFC and 20-gauge FC at an average infusion rate of 5.74 ml/s for the 18-gauge NFC and 5.58 ml/s for the 20-gauge FC [23]. Both types of catheters provided similar contrast infusion rates with no increased risk of extravasation for the 20-gauge FC group (20-gauge FC: 230.5 ± 27.6 HU, 18-gauge NFC: 215.6 ± 32.8 HU). In addition, the FC were still available to those patients who were considered ineligible for placement of an 18-gauge catheter due to venous status. Although the abdominal aorta was examined in this study and different catheter sizes were used when compared to our study focusing on the coronary arteries, the results are similar. To our knowledge only one study explored the feasibility of NFCs in cardiac imaging before [24]. Kim et al. compared 20-gauge NFCs and 22-gauge FCs in the context of cardiac imaging. As the authors pointed out themselves, 20-gauge catheters are not commonly used in CCTA as the limited flow rate has a direct impact on intravascular enhancement. Consecutively, a clear superiority of FCs regarding intravascular attenuation was shown. Besides the smaller catheters as reference group, a flow rate of 4 ml/s was used, which directly alters intraarterial contrast [25]. Beyond their results, we were now able to show that FCs are equivalent, and partially superior, to the larger 18-gauge catheters, suggesting further feasibility in clinical praxis even at high flow rates.
Our study underlies various limitations. First, catheter types were compared between different patients, but not individually in every patient. This is mainly due to the fact, that most patients did not receive multiple CCTAs at our medical center. Ideally, every patient would have received two scans: once with an NFC and once with a FC. Differences in canula placement, enhancement and image quality might therefore be biased by overall group differences. Regarding the study design, a completely blind evaluation of catheter placement was not possible as there was an obvious visual difference between the two catheter types. However, the image evaluation was performed blinded. Furthermore, the increased pressure load of the 22-gauge FC in the study resulted in minimal, temporal delay of the contrast agent peak, even though we tried to maximize the potential pressure load through the bolus tracking technique. Another factor in the use of FC is the cost factor, which is many times higher than a conventional catheter. Since this is a retrospective data evaluation, we cannot make any statements about the duration of the application of the respective catheter systems, as this was not recorded. In clinical practice, however, there is no significant time difference with regard to the duration of application. Future evaluations should take the higher cost factor and potential time savings in catheter placement into account. Regarding our sample size, the small number of 37 patients in each group limits the statistical power of the study. Although the antecubital region is the preferred location for catheter placement, the exact positions could not be deduced retrospectively from our reports. As the position of the indwelling venous cannula has an influence on the contrast, thisshould not be omitted as a further limitation of our study. As not the same person was responsible to establish all 78 i.v. catheters, different grades of expertise might have influenced the success rate at the first attempt.
In summary, we were able to show that 22-gauge FCs are equivalent, and partially better in terms of contrast-enhanced image quality and safety compared to a conventional 18-gauge NFC at infusion rates of 5 ml/s in context ofCCTA. The administration of contrast agent with FC may better withstand the recognizable trend of increasingly faster acquisition times with MDCT scanners. With progressively aging patient cohorts, the rise of cardiovascular comorbidities and thus limited peripheral venous conditions, the use of FC might lead not only to faster but also more tolerable examinations due to reduction of catheter sizes. The evaluation of these long-term benefits in clinical praxis could be akey approach for further prospective studies.
References
- 1. Behrendt FF, Pietsch H, Jost G, Sieber MA, Keil S, Plumhans C, et al. Intra-individual comparison of different contrast media concentrations (300 mg, 370 mg and 400 mg iodine) in MDCT. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(7):1644–50. Epub 2010/02/26. pmid:20182733.
- 2. Awai K, Kanematsu M, Kim T, Ichikawa T, Nakamura Y, Nakamoto A, et al. The Optimal Body Size Index with Which to Determine Iodine Dose for Hepatic Dynamic CT: A Prospective Multicenter Study. Radiology. 2016;278(3):773–81. Epub 2015/09/12. pmid:26356063.
- 3. Silvennoinen HM, Hamberg LM, Lindsberg PJ, Valanne L, Hunter GJ. CT perfusion identifies increased salvage of tissue in patients receiving intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator within 3 hours of stroke onset. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29(6):1118–23. Epub 2008/04/12. pmid:18403559.
- 4. Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Nishibori H, Sakurai K, Miyazawa D, Watanabe H, et al. CT of the pancreas: comparison of anatomic structure depiction, image quality, and radiation exposure between 320-detector volumetric images and 64-detector helical images. Radiology. 2011;260(1):139–47. Epub 2011/03/17. pmid:21406629.
- 5. Poole GW. Exercise, coronary heart disease and risk factors. A brief report. Sports Med. 1984;1(5):341–9. Epub 1984/09/01. pmid:6390608.
- 6. Schlett CL, Nattenmuller J, Tsuchiya N, Vogel-Claussen J, Kauczor HU, Levin D, et al. Noncontrast Chest Computed Tomographic Imaging of Obesity and the Metabolic Syndrome: Part I Cardiovascular Findings. J Thorac Imaging. 2019;34(2):116–25. Epub 2019/02/26. pmid:30802234.
- 7. Chillaron JJ, Flores Le-Roux JA, Benaiges D, Pedro-Botet J. Type 1 diabetes, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk. Metabolism. 2014;63(2):181–7. Epub 2013/11/28. pmid:24274980.
- 8. Katakami N. Mechanism of Development of Atherosclerosis and Cardiovascular Disease in Diabetes Mellitus. J Atheroscler Thromb. 2018;25(1):27–39. Epub 2017/10/03. pmid:28966336.
- 9. Mbamalu D, Banerjee A. Methods of obtaining peripheral venous access in difficult situations. Postgrad Med J. 1999;75(886):459–62. Epub 2000/01/26. pmid:10646021.
- 10. Johnson PT, Christensen G, Lai H, Eng J, Fishman EK. Catheter insertion for intravenous (IV) contrast infusion in multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT): defining how catheter caliber selection affects procedure of catheter insertion, IV contrast infusion rate, complication rate, and MDCT image quality. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2014;38(2):281–4. Epub 2014/03/15. pmid:24625598.
- 11. Wienbeck S, Fischbach R, Kloska SP, Seidensticker P, Osada N, Heindel W, et al. Prospective study of access site complications of automated contrast injection with peripheral venous access in MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(4):825–9. Epub 2010/09/23. pmid:20858804.
- 12. Schwab SA, Uder M, Anders K, Heinrich MC, Kuefner MA. Peripheral intravenous power injection of iodinated contrast media through 22G and 20G cannulas: can high flow rates be achieved safely? A clinical feasibility study. Rofo. 2009;181(4):355–61. Epub 2009/03/13. pmid:19280548.
- 13. Behrendt FF, Bruners P, Keil S, Plumhans C, Mahnken AH, Stanzel S, et al. Impact of different vein catheter sizes for mechanical power injection in CT: in vitro evaluation with use of a circulation phantom. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2009;32(1):25–31. Epub 2008/06/04. pmid:18521665.
- 14. Weber PW, Coursey CA, Howle LE, Nelson RC, Nichols EB, Schindera ST. Modifying peripheral IV catheters with side holes and side slits results in favorable changes in fluid dynamic properties during the injection of iodinated contrast material. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(4):970–7. Epub 2009/09/23. pmid:19770318.
- 15. Maroules CD, Rajiah P, Bhasin M, Abbara S. Current Evidence in Cardiothoracic Imaging: Growing Evidence for Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography as a First-line Test in Stable Chest Pain. J Thorac Imaging. 2019;34(1):4–11. Epub 2018/08/30. pmid:30157094.
- 16. Erthal F, Premaratne M, Yam Y, Chen L, Lamba J, Keenan M, et al. Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography: Does Computed Tomography Have Incremental Value in All Appropriate Use Criteria Categories? J Thorac Imaging. 2018;33(2):132–7. Epub 2017/09/16. pmid:28914747.
- 17. Tabari A, Lo Gullo R, Murugan V, Otrakji A, Digumarthy S, Kalra M. Recent Advances in Computed Tomographic Technology: Cardiopulmonary Imaging Applications. J Thorac Imaging. 2017;32(2):89–100. Epub 2017/02/22. pmid:28221262.
- 18. Grigioni M, Daniele C, Morbiducci U, D'Avenio G, Di Benedetto G, Del Gaudio C, et al. Computational model of the fluid dynamics of a cannula inserted in a vessel: incidence of the presence of side holes in blood flow. J Biomech. 2002;35(12):1599–612. Epub 2002/11/26. pmid:12445613.
- 19. Park JY, Park CY, Min BG. A numerical study on the effect of side hole number and arrangement in venous cannulae. J Biomech. 2007;40(5):1153–7. Epub 2006/06/13. pmid:16764882.
- 20. Marin D, Nelson RC, Rubin GD, Schindera ST. Body CT: technical advances for improving safety. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(1):33–41. Epub 2011/06/28. pmid:21701008.
- 21. Voress M. The increasing use of CT and its risks. Radiol Technol. 2007;79(2):186–90. Epub 2007/11/23. pmid:18032753.
- 22. Daniel TB, Akins EW, Hawkins IF Jr. A solution to the problem of high-flow jets from miniature angiographic catheters. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;154(5):1091–5. Epub 1990/05/01. pmid:2108548.
- 23. Johnson PT, Christensen GM, Fishman EK. I.v. contrast administration with dual source 128-MDCT: a randomized controlled study comparing 18-gauge nonfenestrated and 20-gauge fenestrated catheters for catheter placement success, infusion rate, image quality, and complications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(6):1166–70. Epub 2014/05/23. pmid:24848812.
- 24. Kim J, Kim EJ, Hur JH, Ham JO, Kim YK, Choi SI. The Usefulness of Fenestrated Intravenous Catheters Compared With Nonfenestrated Catheter for Cardiac Multidetector Computed Tomography. Journal of computer assisted tomography. 2019;43(3):423–7. pmid:31082947
- 25. Behrendt FF, Bruners P, Keil S, Plumhans C, Mahnken AH, Das M, et al. Effect of different saline chaser volumes and flow rates on intravascular contrast enhancement in CT using a circulation phantom. European journal of radiology. 2010;73(3):688–93. pmid:19349133