Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2016
Comparison of gadoxetic acid to gadobenate dimeglumine for assessment of biliary anatomy of potential liver donors.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lewis Sara, Vasudevan Prasanna, Chatterji Manjil, Besa Cecilia, Jajamovich Guido, Facciuto Marcelo, Taouli Bachir
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare MRI using gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA) vs. gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA) for the assessment of biliary anatomy of potential liver donors.
METHODS: 76 potential liver donors (39 M/37 F, mean 38 years) who underwent 1.5T MRI using Gd-BOPTA (n = 37) or Gd-EOB-DTPA (n = 39) were retrospectively evaluated. T2 cholangiogram (T2 MRC) and delayed hepatobiliary phase (HBP) T1 cholangiogram (T1 MRC) (performed during HBP 20 min after injection of Gd-EOB-DTPA and 1-2 h after Gd-BOPTA injection) were obtained in addition to MR angiogram/venogram. Two independent observers evaluated image quality (IQ) and conspicuity scores (CS) of the biliary system. Biliary anatomy was assessed in 3 reading sessions (T2 MRC, T1 MRC, and combined T2/T1 MRC). Reference standard consisted of consensus reading of two separate observers of all image sets, clinical/surgical information and intraoperative cholangiogram when available. Datasets were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test or Chi-squared test.
RESULTS: There was no difference in IQ for T1 MRC using either contrast agent or T2 MRC vs. T1 MRC for both observers (all p values >0.07). There was superior CS for T2 MRC vs. Gd-BOPTA T1 MRC for both observers and T2 MRC vs. Gd-EOB for one observer (p < 0.001). No difference was found for biliary variant detection for T1 MRC (with either contrast agent) vs. T2 MRC. Combined T2/T1 MRC demonstrated improved sensitivity for biliary variant detection using Gd-BOPTA for both observers (p < 0.004) and Gd-EOB-DTPA for one observer (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Equivalent image quality was found for T1 MRC obtained with Gd-BOPTA or Gd-EOB-DTPA and T2 MRC. T1 MRC is equivalent to T2 MRC for detection of variant biliary anatomy, and the combination of sequences may have added value.
METHODS: 76 potential liver donors (39 M/37 F, mean 38 years) who underwent 1.5T MRI using Gd-BOPTA (n = 37) or Gd-EOB-DTPA (n = 39) were retrospectively evaluated. T2 cholangiogram (T2 MRC) and delayed hepatobiliary phase (HBP) T1 cholangiogram (T1 MRC) (performed during HBP 20 min after injection of Gd-EOB-DTPA and 1-2 h after Gd-BOPTA injection) were obtained in addition to MR angiogram/venogram. Two independent observers evaluated image quality (IQ) and conspicuity scores (CS) of the biliary system. Biliary anatomy was assessed in 3 reading sessions (T2 MRC, T1 MRC, and combined T2/T1 MRC). Reference standard consisted of consensus reading of two separate observers of all image sets, clinical/surgical information and intraoperative cholangiogram when available. Datasets were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test or Chi-squared test.
RESULTS: There was no difference in IQ for T1 MRC using either contrast agent or T2 MRC vs. T1 MRC for both observers (all p values >0.07). There was superior CS for T2 MRC vs. Gd-BOPTA T1 MRC for both observers and T2 MRC vs. Gd-EOB for one observer (p < 0.001). No difference was found for biliary variant detection for T1 MRC (with either contrast agent) vs. T2 MRC. Combined T2/T1 MRC demonstrated improved sensitivity for biliary variant detection using Gd-BOPTA for both observers (p < 0.004) and Gd-EOB-DTPA for one observer (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Equivalent image quality was found for T1 MRC obtained with Gd-BOPTA or Gd-EOB-DTPA and T2 MRC. T1 MRC is equivalent to T2 MRC for detection of variant biliary anatomy, and the combination of sequences may have added value.