PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

William C Small

Publications and source records attributed to William C Small.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Adverse reactions to intravenous iodinated contrast media: a primer for radiologists.

Adverse reactions to intravenous iodinated contrast media may be classified as general and organ-specific, such as contrast-induced nephrotoxicity. General adverse reactions may be subclassified into acute and delayed types. Acute general adverse reactions can range from transient minor reactions to life-threatening severe reactions. Non-ionic contrast media have lower risk of mild and moderate adverse reactions. However, the risk of fatal reactions is similar for ionic and non-ionic contrast media. Adequate preprocedure evaluation should be performed to identify predisposing risk factors. Prompt recognition and treatment of acute adverse reactions is crucial. Risk of contrast induced nephrotoxicity can be reduced by use of non-ionic contrast media, less volume of contrast, and adequate hydration. The radiologist can play a pivotal role by being aware of predisposing factors, clinical presentation, and management of adverse reactions to contrast media.

Acidosis, Lactic↗
PubMed2006

Multidetector row CT angiography of living related renal donors: is there a need for venous phase imaging?

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate whether renal venous anatomy can be detected from arterial phase images of multidetector row CT (MDCT) of renal donors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Institutional review board approved our study protocol with waiver of consent. Forty-eight consecutive renal donors (age range, 21-56 years; M:F, 20:28) referred for MDCT evaluation were included. Two sub-specialty radiologists performed an independent and separate evaluation of renal venous anatomy in arterial and venous phase images. Opacification of renal venous structures was scored on a five-point scale (1-not seen; 3-minimal opacification; 5-excellent opacification). Arterial and venous phase opacification scores were compared by Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: Both readers detected all renal venous anomalies in arterial as well as venous phase images. Each reader detected accessory right renal veins (n=14), retroaortic left renal vein (n=2), circumaortic left renal vein (n=1), and left renal hilar arteriovenous malformation (n=1) in arterial phase images. Retroaortic left renal venous branch was difficult to differentiate from lumbar vein (reader-1, n=1; reader-2, n=2) in both arterial and venous phase images. Sensitivity of detection of renal veins, left adrenal, gonadal and lumbar veins in arterial phase images was 100, 83-88, 100, and 85-90%, respectively. As expected, venous phase images showed significantly greater opacification of renal veins, left gonadal, adrenal and lumbar veins (p<.05). However, this did not substantially limit the evaluation of renal venous anatomy in arterial phase images. Both readers had substantial interobserver agreement (kappa coefficient, 0.7; p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Arterial phase MDCT images alone can be used to detect renal venous anomalies, and to identify small left renal venous branches namely, the left gonadal, adrenal and lumbar veins in renal donors. Venous phase MDCT acquisition is not necessary for evaluation of renal venous anatomy in renal donors.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Efficacy and safety of MR imaging with liver-specific contrast agent: U.S. multicenter phase III study.

PURPOSE: To assess prospectively the efficacy and safety of postcontrast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with gadolinium ethoxybenzyl diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) compared with that of precontrast MR imaging in patients who are known to have or are suspected of having liver lesions and who are scheduled for hepatic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Investigational review board approval and written informed consent were obtained. HIPAA went into effect after data collection. A total of 172 patients were enrolled. After precontrast MR imaging, 169 patients (94 men, 75 women; mean age, 61 years; age range, 19-84 years) received an intravenous bolus of 25 micromol/kg Gd-EOB-DTPA and underwent dynamic gradient-recalled-echo and delayed MR imaging 20 minutes after injection. Arterial and portal phase computed tomography (CT) were performed within 6 weeks of MR imaging. The standard of reference was surgery with intraoperative ultrasonography (US) and biopsy and/or pathologic evaluation of resected liver segments and/or 3-month follow-up of nonresected segments if intraoperative US was not available. Three blinded reviewers and unblinded site investigators identified liver lesions on segment maps. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare differences in per-patient sensitivity of precontrast and postcontrast MR images. Adverse events were recorded, and patient monitoring and laboratory assay were performed at time of injection and up to 24 hours after contrast material administration. RESULTS: At MR imaging, 316 lesions were identified in 131 patients. In 77% (P = .012), 72% (P = .15), and 71% (P = .027) of patients for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively, more lesions were seen at precontrast and postcontrast MR imaging combined than at precontrast MR imaging alone. Sensitivity values for blinded readings were significantly greater at postcontrast MR imaging than at precontrast MR imaging for two of three blinded readers. For all blinded readers, combined precontrast and postcontrast MR images showed no difference in sensitivity compared with helical CT scans. The use of MR imaging, however, yielded fewer patients with at least one false-positive lesion (37%, 31%, and 34% of patients for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively) than did helical CT (45%, 36%, and 43% of patients for readers 1, 2, and 3, respectively). CONCLUSION: Compared with precontrast MR imaging, postcontrast MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA demonstrated improved sensitivity for lesion detection in the majority of blinded readers, with no substantial adverse events.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia.

CONTEXT: Conventional colonoscopy is the best available method for detection of colorectal cancer; however, it is invasive and not without risk. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC), also known as virtual colonoscopy, has been reported to be reasonably accurate in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia in studies performed at expert centers. OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of CTC in a large number of participants across multiple centers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A nonrandomized, evaluator-blinded, noninferiority study design of 615 participants aged 50 years or older who were referred for routine, clinically indicated colonoscopy in 9 major hospital centers between April 17, 2000, and October 3, 2001. The CTC was performed by using multislice scanners immediately before standard colonoscopy; findings at colonoscopy were reported before and after segmental unblinding to the CTC results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity and specificity of CTC and conventional colonoscopy in detecting participants with lesions sized at least 6 mm. Secondary outcomes included detection of all lesions, detection of advanced lesions, possible technical confounders, participant preferences, and evidence for increasing accuracy with experience. RESULTS: A total of 827 lesions were detected in 308 of 600 participants who underwent both procedures; 104 participants had lesions sized at least 6 mm. The sensitivity of CTC for detecting participants with 1 or more lesions sized at least 6 mm was 39.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29.6%-48.4%) and for lesions sized at least 10 mm, it was 55.0% (95% CI, 39.9%-70.0%). These results were significantly lower than those for conventional colonoscopy, with sensitivities of 99.0% (95% CI, 97.1%->99.9%) and 100%, respectively. A total of 496 participants were without any lesion sized at least 6 mm. The specificity of CTC and conventional colonoscopy for detecting participants without any lesion sized at least 6 mm was 90.5% (95% CI, 87.9%-93.1%) and 100%, respectively, and without lesions sized at least 10 mm, 96.0% (95% CI, 94.3%-97.6%) and 100%, respectively. Computed tomographic colonography missed 2 of 8 cancers. The accuracy of CTC varied considerably between centers and did not improve as the study progressed. Participants expressed no clear preference for either technique. CONCLUSIONS: Computed tomographic colonography by these methods is not yet ready for widespread clinical application. Techniques and training need to be improved.

Colonography, Computed Tomographic↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Multidetector-row CT angiography for preoperative evaluation of potential laparoscopic renal donors: how accurate are we?

The purpose of this study was to evaluate multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) angiography in preoperative evaluation of renal donors for renal vascular abnormalities. Eighty-one patients underwent renal MDCT angiography and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. MDCT angiographic findings were compared with surgical findings. The sensitivity and specificity of MDCT angiography for detection of accessory arteries, prehilar renal artery branching, and renal venous anomalies were 88% and 98%, 100% and 97%, and 100% and 97%, respectively. CT findings agreed with surgical findings for accessory renal arteries, prehilar renal artery branching, and renal venous anomalies in 94%, 93%, and 98% of patients, respectively.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Multidetector row computed tomography evaluation of potential living laparoscopic renal donors: the story so far.

Renal transplantation is the treatment of choice for end-stage renal disease. Living related kidney donation is the major source of renal grafts due to limited availability of cadaveric kidneys. Open nephrectomy was used to harvest donor kidneys. However, the laparoscopic approach is associated with less postoperative pain and quick recovery. So, most centers now prefer a laparoscopic approach to explant donor kidneys. Laparoscopic approach is technically challenging due to limited operative visibility. Hence, accurate preoperative detection of renal arterial and venous anomalies is imperative to avoid inadvertent vascular injury and bleeding. The preoperative workup of renal donors includes clinical evaluation, laboratory tests, and imaging. Traditionally, the renal donors were evaluated with conventional imaging techniques, which included renal catheter angiography and intravenous urography. However, conventional imaging is invasive, expensive, and less accurate for evaluation of complex renal venous anomalies, small calculi, and diffuse or focal renal parenchymal lesions. The introduction of multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) revolutionized the CT technology by enabling isotropic resolution with faster scan coverage in a single, short breath-hold. Consequently, MDCT has now replaced conventional imaging for comprehensive imaging of potential living renal donors. MDCT is a minimally invasive technique that can accurately detect urolithiasis, renal arterial and venous anomalies, renal parenchymal lesions, and urinary tract anomalies. Renal vascular anomalies detected by MDCT can help the surgeon in planning donor nephrectomy. MDCT with three-dimensional CT angiography enables accurate preoperative renal vascular mapping. This article reviews the role of MDCT in preoperative evaluation of potential laparoscopic renal donors.

Clinical Protocols↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Adverse reactions to intravenous iodinated contrast media: an update.

Assessment of patients before intravenous contrast injection can help in detecting predisposing risk factors for adverse reactions to contrast media. Early recognition and treatment of acute adverse reactions can prevent morbidity and mortality (rare).

Contrast Media↗