Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the quality of MR imaging and level of adverse effects with increasing concentrations of gastrografin. This is a prospective study with 24 healthy volunteers which were randomised into four groups receiving 50%, 25%, 10% and 0% gastrografin. The endpoint was bowel image quality based on distension, signal homogeneity and wall delineation evaluated by three independent radiologists, and the maximum bowel diameter at three different levels. The subjects also scored any adverse events on a 1–5 scale. The interradiologist agreement was relatively good, with kappa values varying between 0.81 and 0.41. Improved bowel distension and image quality were achieved with increasing concentrations. But significant dose-response effects were found between increasing osmolalities and the bowel diameters and also versus the score of adverse events. The most frequent adverse reactions were diarrhea, nausea and lack of palatability. There is a gradient relationship between increasing osmolality of gastrografin and improved image quality and the score of adverse effects. The optimum concentration of gastrografin is dependent of the tolerance of the adverse events.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Masselli G, Brizi GM, Parrella A, Minordi LM, Vecchioli A, Mareno P (2004) Crohn disease: magnetic resonance enteroclysis. Abdom Imaging 29:326–334
Schunk K (2002) Small bowel magnetic resonance imaging for inflammatory bowel disease. Top Magn Reson Imaging 13(6):409–425
Rieber A, Aschoff A, Nüssle K et al. (2000) MRI in the diagnosis of small bowel disease: use of positive and negative oral contrast media in combination with enteroclysis. Eur Radiol 10(9):1377–1382
Umschaden HW, Szolar D, Gasser J, Umschaden M, Haselbach H (2000) Small bowel disease: comparison of MR enteroclysis images with conventional enteroclysis and surgical findings. Radiology 215:717–725
Gourtsoyiannis N, Papanikolaou N, Grammatikakis J, Maris T (2000) MR imaging of the small bowel with a true-FISP sequence after enteroclysis with water solution. Invest Radiol 35:707–711
Schunk K, Kern A, Oberholzer K, Kalden P, Mayer I, Orth T, Wanitsche R (2000) Hydro-MRI in Crohn’s disease: appraisal of disease activity. Invest Radiol 35:431–437
Born C, Nagel B, Leinsiger G, Reiser M (2003) MRI with oral filling in patients with chronic inflammatory bowel diseases. Radiologie 43:34–42
Ajaj W, Goehde SC, Schneemann H, Ruehm SG, Debatin JF, Lauenstein TC (2004) Oral contrast agents for small bowel MRI: comparison of different additives to optimize bowel distension. Eur Radiol 14(3): 458–464
Narin B, Ajaj W, Gohde S et al. (2004) Combined small and large bowel MR imaging in patients with Crohn’s disease: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 18 (Epub ahead of print)
Lauenstein TC, Schneemann H, Vogt FM, Herborn CU, Ruhm SG, Debatin JF (2003) Optimization of oral contrast agents for MR imaging of the small bowel. Radiology 228(1):279–283
Borthne AS, Dormagen JB, Gjesdal KI, Storaas T, Lygren I, Geitung JT (2003) Bowel MR imaging with oral Gastrografin: an experimental study with healthy volunteers. Eur Radiol 13:100–106
Altman DG (1996) Practical statistics for medical research, Chapman & Hall, London
Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H (1982) Epidemiologic research. Principles and quantitative methods. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York
Donner A, Eliasziw M (1992) A goodness of fit approach to inference procedures for the kappa statistics, confidence interval construction, significance testing and sample size determination, Stat Med 11:1511–1519
Vlahos L, Gouliamos A, Athanasopoulou A et al. (1994) A comparative study between Gd-DTPA and oral magnetic particles (OMP) as gastrointestinal (GI) contrast agents for MRI of the abdomen. Magn Reson Imaging 12:719–726
Hiraishi K, Narabayashi I, Fujita O et al. (1995) Blueberry juice: preliminary evaluation as an oral contrast agent in gastrointestinal MR imaging. Radiology 194:119–123
Brown JJ (1996) Gastrointestinal contrast agents for MR imaging. MR Clin N Am 4:25–35
Burton SS, Liebig T, Frazier SD, Ros PR (1997) High-density oral barium sulfate in abdominal MRI: efficiency and tolerance in a clinical setting. Magn Reson Imaging 15:147–153
Ernst O, Sergent G, L’Hermine C (1997) Oral administration of low-cost negative contrast agent: a three-year experience in routine practice. J Magn Reson Imaging 7:495–498
Faber SC, Stehling MK, Holzknecht N, Gauger J, Helmberger T, Reiser M (1997) Pathologic conditions in the small bowel: findings at fat-suppressed gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging with an optimized suspension of oral magnetic particles. Radiology 205:278–282
Small WC, Macchi DD, Parker JR, Bernadino ME (1998) Multisite study of the safety and efficacy of Lumen–Hance, a new gastrointestinal contrast agent for MRI of the abdomen and pelvis. Acad Radiol 5:147–150
Debatin JF, Patak MA (1999) MRI of the small and large bowel. Eur Radiol 1523–1534
Laniado M, Kornmesser W, Hamm B, Clauss W, Weinmann H-J, Felix R (1988) MR imaging of the gastrointestinal tract: value of Gd-DTPA. Am J Roentgenol 150:817–821
Antes G (2003) Barium examinations of the small intestine and the colon in inflammatory bowel disease. Radiologe 44:9–16
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Sanne Lindequist and May Oxaal, Amersham Health, for valuable assistance.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Borthne, A.S., Abdelnoor, M., Hellund, J.C. et al. MR imaging of the small bowel with increasing concentrations of an oral osmotic agent. Eur Radiol 15, 666–671 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2636-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2636-2