Renal streak artifact during contrast-enhanced CT: Comparison of low versus high osmolality contrast media

Abstract

Two hundred abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scans in 200 patients, 100 performed with low osmolality contrast (ioversol 68%, 100 ml) and 100 performed with high osmolality contrast (diatrizoate meglumine 60%, 150 ml), were retrospectively evaluated for the presence of renal streak artifact. Contrast was administered by hand injection at a rate of approximately 1-2 ml/s and sequential scanning was employed. Of the scans performed with high osmolality contrast, 70% had no artifact, 28% had minimal artifact, and only 2% had marked artifact. Only 26% of the exams performed with low osmolality contrast were artifact-free, whereas 53% demonstrated minimal artifact and 21% demonstrated marked artifact. The likelihood of encountering renal streak artifact when using low osmolality contrast agents is almost seven times greater than when high osmolality contrast agents are used.

A Comparison of the Use of Contrast Media with Different Iodine Concentrations for Multidetector CT of the Kidney

“…The artifact was evaluated according to osmolarity degrees of the contrast media with grading systems used in a previous study (17). Coincidentally, the artifact is also thought to be influenced by the iodine concentration of the contrast media.…”

Low tube voltage computed tomography urography using low-concentration contrast media: Comparison of image quality in conventional computed tomography urography

“…Major streak artifacts affect the renal parenchyma and interfere with the interpretation of focal lesions. It is more frequently observed with low osmolality contrast media and may affect the diagnostic performance [27]. Possible solutions are to review image using normal-dose corticomedullary phase images as a reference [28].…”

Current status of multidetector computed tomography urography in imaging of the urinary tract

“…4 Our experience with the 2-phase CTU protocol suggests that problems with streak artifacts are rarely significant. This may be explained by the fact that the collecting system is opacified with only 30 mL of contrast, thus reducing the density of contrast in the calyces and collecting system.…”