Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Past decades of research into contrast media injections and optimization thereof in radiology clinics have focused on scan acquisition parameters, patient-related factors, and contrast injection protocol variables. In this review, evidence is provided that a fourth bucket of crucial variables has been missed which account for previously unexplained phenomena and higher-than-expected variability in data. We propose how these critical factors should be considered and implemented in the contrast-medium administration protocols to optimize contrast enhancement. METHODS: This article leverages a combination of methodologies for uncovering and quantifying confounding variables associated with or affecting the contrast-medium injection. Engineering benchtop equipment such as Coriolis flow meters, pressure transducers, and volumetric measurement devices are combined with small, targeted systematic evaluations querying operators, equipment, and the physics and fluid dynamics that make a seemingly simple task of injecting fluid into a patient a complex and non-linear endeavor. RESULTS: Evidence is presented around seven key factors affecting the contrast-medium injection including a new way of selecting optimal IV catheters, degraded performance from longer tubing sets, variability associated with the mechanical injection system technology, common operator errors, fluids exchanging places stealthily based on gravity and density, wasted contrast media and inefficient saline flushes, as well as variability in the injected flow rate vs. theoretical expectations. CONCLUSION: There remain several critical, but not commonly known, sources of error associated with contrast-medium injections. Elimination of these hidden sources of error where possible can bring immediate benefits and help to drive standardized and optimized contrast-media injections. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This review brings to light the commonly neglected/unknown factors negatively impacting contrast-medium injections and provides recommendations that can result in patient benefits, quality improvements, sustainability increases, and financial benefits by enabling otherwise unachievable optimization. KEY POINTS: How IV contrast media is administered is a rarely considered source of CT imaging variability. IV catheter selection, tubing length, injection systems, and insufficient flushing can result in unintended variability. These findings can be immediately addressed to improve standardization in contrast-enhanced CT imaging.