A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Optimal contrast material concentration for distinguishing among carotid artery lumen, carotid stent, and neck in cone-beam computed tomography during carotid angiography: basic and clinical studies. | LitMetric

Purpose: To explore the optimal contrast material (CM) concentration for distinguishing CM, carotid stent (CS), and neck components in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) during carotid angiography (CBCT-CA).

Materials And Methods: A neck phantom containing CS and contrast-filled imitation vessels of 9 mm diameter was scanned using CBCT. CM (300 mgI/ml) was used in concentrations of 100, 50, 33, 10, 5, and 1%. In a clinical study, 30 patients with a CS (Precise or Wallstent) underwent CBCT-CA with CM injected at a rate of 3 ml/s and a concentration of 10 or 20%.

Results: In the basic study, CBCTA using 5% CM enabled clear distinction among the three components under windowing at 1500 width and 300 center, and showed the exact diameter of the imitation vessel. Pixel values of CM inside the Precise and the Wallstent were 622.2 ± 32.9 (mean ± SD) and 746.0 ± 27.9, respectively. In the clinical study using CM at concentrations of 10 and 20%, pixel values of CM inside the Wallstent were 632.3 ± 69.2 and 1024.5 ± 99.0, respectively.

Conclusion: Optimal CM concentration for distinguishing among the three components was 5% in the basic study; the optimal concentration was 10% in the clinical study.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11604-011-0048-1DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

concentration distinguishing
12
clinical study
12
optimal contrast
8
contrast material
8
material concentration
8
distinguishing carotid
8
carotid stent
8
stent neck
8
cone-beam computed
8
computed tomography
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!