We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Angiographic detection of gastrointestinal bleeding. An experimental comparison of conventional screen-film angiography and digital subtraction angiography.
Investigative Radiology 1996 July
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The authors experimentally assess and compare the detection limit of gastrointestinal bleeding in digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and conventional screen-film angiography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Arterial blood flow was simulated using a tube model in which bleeding was imitated by exudation of liquid containing contrast material. Gut peristalsis was imitated using silicone tubes filled with air and liquid. Images were acquired by DSA and conventional screen-film angiography. The iodine concentration was increased in increments from 1 mg I/mL, with and without simulated peristalsis, and with both free and circumscribed extravasation of contrast material.
RESULTS: The detection limit for free extravasation in DSA was 1 mg I/mL without peristalsis and 60 mg I/mL with peristalsis. The corresponding figures for circumscribed extravasation were 1 mg I/mL and 34 mg I/mL. The detection limit for free extravasation in screen-film angiography was 172 mg I/mL both with and without simulated peristalsis. Circumscribed extravasation was detected at 9 mg I/mL without peristalsis and 7 mg I/mL with peristalsis.
CONCLUSION: Digital subtraction angiography is the more sensitive angiographic technique for detection of gastrointestinal bleeding and is superior to conventional screen-film angiography, provided that it is performed with adequate parasym-pathicolysis and suspended respiration. Only when these requirements cannot be achieved is screen-film angiography advantageous.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Arterial blood flow was simulated using a tube model in which bleeding was imitated by exudation of liquid containing contrast material. Gut peristalsis was imitated using silicone tubes filled with air and liquid. Images were acquired by DSA and conventional screen-film angiography. The iodine concentration was increased in increments from 1 mg I/mL, with and without simulated peristalsis, and with both free and circumscribed extravasation of contrast material.
RESULTS: The detection limit for free extravasation in DSA was 1 mg I/mL without peristalsis and 60 mg I/mL with peristalsis. The corresponding figures for circumscribed extravasation were 1 mg I/mL and 34 mg I/mL. The detection limit for free extravasation in screen-film angiography was 172 mg I/mL both with and without simulated peristalsis. Circumscribed extravasation was detected at 9 mg I/mL without peristalsis and 7 mg I/mL with peristalsis.
CONCLUSION: Digital subtraction angiography is the more sensitive angiographic technique for detection of gastrointestinal bleeding and is superior to conventional screen-film angiography, provided that it is performed with adequate parasym-pathicolysis and suspended respiration. Only when these requirements cannot be achieved is screen-film angiography advantageous.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults.Gut 2024 April 17
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Ventilator Waveforms May Give Clues to Expiratory Muscle Activity.American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2024 April 25
Systemic lupus erythematosus.Lancet 2024 April 18
Acute Kidney Injury and Electrolyte Imbalances Caused by Dapagliflozin Short-Term Use.Pharmaceuticals 2024 March 27
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app