Estimated LBW could be used to determine the contrast material dose and rate during MDCT. The aim of this study is to test the accuracy of a technique for estimation of lean body weight (LBW) from a single multi-detec...Estimated LBW could be used to determine the contrast material dose and rate during MDCT. The aim of this study is to test the accuracy of a technique for estimation of lean body weight (LBW) from a single multi-detector row computed tomographic (MDCT) abdominal image, using a bioelectrical body composition analyzer scale as the reference standard. CT images of 21 patients with previously measured LBW (mLBW) were processed using computer-assisted, vendor-specific software (Advantage Windows 4.2;GE Healthcare, Inc). For each transverse image, a fat-fraction was automatically measured as the number of fat pixels (-200 to -50 HU) divided by the total number of pixels having an attenuation value ≥-200 HU. Estimated LBW (eLBW) of five single contiguous sections was calculated in each of three abdominal regions (upper abdomen, mid abdomen and pelvis) by multiplying TBW by (1 – fat-fraction). Bland-Altman plot with limits of agreement was used to assess agreement between mLBW and eLBW. The mean mLBW for all patients was 56 kg (range, 39 - 75 kg). Mean differences and limits of agreement between mLBW and eLBW measurements for the upper abdomen, mid abdomen and pelvis reported were -8.9 kg (-25.6 kg, +7.5 kg), -10.6 kg (-27.7 kg, +6.4 kg), and +0.5 kg (-12.8 kg, +13.8 kg) respectively. eLBW deriving directly from a transverse CT image of the pelvis can accurately predict mLBW.展开更多
文摘Estimated LBW could be used to determine the contrast material dose and rate during MDCT. The aim of this study is to test the accuracy of a technique for estimation of lean body weight (LBW) from a single multi-detector row computed tomographic (MDCT) abdominal image, using a bioelectrical body composition analyzer scale as the reference standard. CT images of 21 patients with previously measured LBW (mLBW) were processed using computer-assisted, vendor-specific software (Advantage Windows 4.2;GE Healthcare, Inc). For each transverse image, a fat-fraction was automatically measured as the number of fat pixels (-200 to -50 HU) divided by the total number of pixels having an attenuation value ≥-200 HU. Estimated LBW (eLBW) of five single contiguous sections was calculated in each of three abdominal regions (upper abdomen, mid abdomen and pelvis) by multiplying TBW by (1 – fat-fraction). Bland-Altman plot with limits of agreement was used to assess agreement between mLBW and eLBW. The mean mLBW for all patients was 56 kg (range, 39 - 75 kg). Mean differences and limits of agreement between mLBW and eLBW measurements for the upper abdomen, mid abdomen and pelvis reported were -8.9 kg (-25.6 kg, +7.5 kg), -10.6 kg (-27.7 kg, +6.4 kg), and +0.5 kg (-12.8 kg, +13.8 kg) respectively. eLBW deriving directly from a transverse CT image of the pelvis can accurately predict mLBW.
