Skip to main content
Log in

MR imaging of the small bowel with increasing concentrations of an oral osmotic agent

  • Gastrointestinal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Masselli G, Brizi GM, Parrella A, Minordi LM, Vecchioli A, Mareno P (2004) Crohn disease: magnetic resonance enteroclysis. Abdom Imaging 29:326–334

    Google Scholar 

  2. Schunk K (2002) Small bowel magnetic resonance imaging for inflammatory bowel disease. Top Magn Reson Imaging 13(6):409–425

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Google Scholar 

  7. Born C, Nagel B, Leinsiger G, Reiser M (2003) MRI with oral filling in patients with chronic inflammatory bowel diseases. Radiologie 43:34–42

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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)

  10. 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

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Google Scholar 

  12. Altman DG (1996) Practical statistics for medical research, Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H (1982) Epidemiologic research. Principles and quantitative methods. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Google Scholar 

  17. Brown JJ (1996) Gastrointestinal contrast agents for MR imaging. MR Clin N Am 4:25–35

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Google Scholar 

  22. Debatin JF, Patak MA (1999) MRI of the small and large bowel. Eur Radiol 1523–1534

  23. 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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Antes G (2003) Barium examinations of the small intestine and the colon in inflammatory bowel disease. Radiologe 44:9–16

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Sanne Lindequist and May Oxaal, Amersham Health, for valuable assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arne S. Borthne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2636-2

Keywords

Navigation