4.1 Article

Effect of catheter diameter and injection rate of flush solution on renal contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with perfluorobutane in dogs

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF VETERINARY RESEARCH
Volume 80, Issue 9, Pages 825-831

Publisher

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/ajvr.80.9.825

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Research Institute for Veterinary Science at Seoul National University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE To assess effects of catheter diameter and injection rate of flush solution (saline [0.9% NaCl] solution) on renal contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) with perfluorobutane in dogs. ANIMALS 5 healthy Beagles. PROCEDURES CEUS of the kidneys was performed by IV injection of contrast medium (0.0125 mL/kg) followed by injection of 5 mL of saline solution at rates of 1, 3, and 5 mL/s through a 20-gauge or 24-gauge catheter; thus, CEUS was repeated 3 times for each catheter diameter. Time-intensity curves were created for regions of interest drawn in the renal cortex and medulla. Repeatability was determined by calculating the coefficient of variation (CV). Statistical analysis was used to assess whether perfusion variables or CV of the perfusion variables was associated with catheter diameter or injection rate. RESULTS Perfusion variables did not differ significantly between catheter diameters. Time to peak enhancement (TTP) in the renal cortex was affected by injection rate, and there were significantly lower values for TTP at higher injection rates. The CEUS variables with the lowest CVs among injection rates were TTP for the renal cortex; the CV for TTP of the renal cortex was the lowest at an injection rate of 5 mL/s. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Use of a 24-gauge catheter did not alter CEUS with perfluorobutane; therefore, such catheters could be used for CEUS of the kidneys of small dogs. Moreover, a rate of 5 mL/s is recommended for injection of flush solution to obtain greater accuracy for renal CEUS in Beagles.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available