J. P. Heiken, J. A. Brink, B. L. McClennan, S. S. Sagel, H. P. Forman and J. DiCroce, “Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced CT of the Liver: Comparison of Contrast Medium Injec tion Rates and Uniphasic and Biphasic Injection Proto cols,” Radiology, Vol. 187, No. 2, 1993, pp. 327-331.

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Portal Venous-Phase CT of the Liver in Patients without Chronic Liver Damage: Does Portal-Inflow Tracking Improve Enhancement and Image Quality?

  AUTHORS: Masayuki Kanematsu, Haruo Watanabe, Hiroshi Kondo, Satoshi Goshima, Hiroshi Kawada, Yoshifumi Noda

  KEYWORDS: CT; Liver; Contrast Enhancement; Bolus Tracking

  JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Radiology, Vol.3 No.3, September 3, 2013

  ABSTRACT: Purpose: This study was undertaken to determine if portal-inflow bolus tracking outperforms aortic bolus tracking with respect to the image quality of contrast-enhanced portal venous-phase CT of the liver in patients without chronic liver damage. Materials and Methods: Contrast-enhanced CT of the liver was performed in 132 consecutive patients without chronic liver damage. Patients were prospectively assigned to three protocols: Protocol A—a portal venous-phase scan delay of 6 seconds after superior mesenteric venous (SMV) enhancement increased by 70 HU or 14 seconds after SMV enhancement was visually confirmed, and Protocols B and C—40 and 50 seconds, respectively, after abdominal aortic enhancement increased by 100 HU. Enhancement (ΔHU) of abdominal aorta, portal trunk, and liver parenchyma and diagnostic acceptability were assessed. Results: ΔHU of aorta was higher for protocol A than for protocols B and C (P P Conclusion: Portal-inflow bolus tracking did not outperform aortic tracking in terms of optimization of portal venous-phase CT in patients without chronic liver damage.