Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Mar 3;10(1):3946.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-60697-w.

Performance of single-use syringe versus multi-use MR contrast injectors: a prospective comparative study

Affiliations

Performance of single-use syringe versus multi-use MR contrast injectors: a prospective comparative study

F Struik et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

The goal of this study was to compare performance parameters of a single-use syringe and a multi-use MR contrast injector. We compared preparation time, cost for disposables and volumes of contrast material used for a single-use (SI) and a multi-use (MI) MR contrast injector in a prospective cross-over trial. During the first study period all consecutive patients eligible for dynamic MR on two systems were included during a period of 20 working days. After 10 days, the injector was switched. Radiographer satisfaction was evaluated using a questionnaire. Contrast usage and waste on system MI was optimised by extra instructions for our radiographers and measured during the second study period of 10 consecutive working days. A total of 202 and 163 patients for systems SI and MI were included, respectively. Average preparation time was 4:55 min for SI and 2:24 min for MI (p < 0.05). Contrast waste for SI was 13% using 7.5 ml syringes. Contrast waste for MI was 5% for 7.5 ml containers. Costs for disposables were lower for MI if more than 5 patients per day were injected. Radiographer satisfaction was higher for MI (4.7 versus 2.8 on a 5-point scale; p < 0.05). The multi-use MR contrast injector led to higher radiographer satisfaction, shorter preparation time, and lower cost if more than 5 patients were injected per day. In addition, cheaper contrast containers of 15 or 30 ml could be used for the first patients if more than 2 or more than 4 injections are performed per day, potentially leading to lower contrast waste.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

A research grant was received from Ulrich Medical, the manufacturer of one of the examined systems.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Timeline of study setup of phase 1 at both 1.5 and 3 T MR scanner.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Percentage of costs of disposables per contrast exam versus system SI. Cost of system SI normalised at 100%, using one set of tubing per exam. System MI uses one daily cassette, costing 297% compared tot system SI and one set of disposables per exam, costing 36%.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kanal E. Gadolinium based contrast agents (GBCA): Safety overview after 3 decades of clinical experience. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2016;34:1341–1345. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2016.08.017. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jost G, Endrikat J, Pietsch H. The Impact of Injector-Based Contrast Agent Administration on Bolus Shape and Magnetic Resonance Angiography Image Quality. Magn. Reson. Insights. 2017;10:1178623X17705894. doi: 10.1177/1178623X17705894. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boland GW, Enhancing CT. productivity: strategies for increasing capacity. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008;191:3–10. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.3208. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Saini S, et al. Technical cost of CT examinations. Radiology. 2001;218:172–175. doi: 10.1148/radiology.218.1.r01ja01172. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chwang WB, et al. Reducing Functional MR Imaging Acquisition Times by Optimizing Workflow. Radiographics. 2017;37:316–322. doi: 10.1148/rg.2017160035. - DOI - PubMed