Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2015
Efficacy of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography compared with T2-weighted magnetic resonance cholangiography in patients with liver cirrhosis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Wu Wen-Pei, Chen Ran-Chou, Lee Chih-Wei, Chen Yao-Li, Lee Kwo-Whei, Wu Hwa-Koon, Chou Chen-Te
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Gadoxetic acid is one of the hepatobiliary-specific agents and so can be used for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography (CE-MRC). The aim of our study was to compare the performance of CE-MRC with that of T2-weighted magnetic resonance cholangiography (T2W-MRC), and also to ascertain the effectiveness of both modalities combined for visualizing anatomic structures of the biliary tree in patients with liver cirrhosis.
METHODS: Fifty-six patients underwent CE-MRC and T2W-MRC imaging. In the CE-MRC studies, hepatobiliary phase images were acquired 20 minutes after contrast injection. Two radiologists first evaluated the T2W-MRC and CE-MRC images separately in random order, and then they reviewed both images together 8 weeks later. The readers graded the quality of visualization of each biliary duct and the entire biliary tree (overall rating) using a five-point scale. Images with a grade of 3 or 4 were considered to provide sufficient visualization for clinical application, and those with a grade of 2 or less were considered to provide insufficient visualization. Laboratory data, Child-Pugh classification, and model for end-stage liver disease score were also recorded.
RESULTS: The overall rating of T2W-MRC was significantly higher than that of CE-MRC (p < 0.001), although combined T2W/CE-MRC provided better visualization of biliary segments than T2W-MRC alone (p = 0.025). There were no significant differences between liver function and the overall rating of CE-MRC.
CONCLUSION: CE-MRC is not superior to conventional T2W-MRC with respect to biliary visualization in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, a combination of T2W-MRC and CE-MRC provides significantly better visualization of biliary structures than T2W-MRC alone.
METHODS: Fifty-six patients underwent CE-MRC and T2W-MRC imaging. In the CE-MRC studies, hepatobiliary phase images were acquired 20 minutes after contrast injection. Two radiologists first evaluated the T2W-MRC and CE-MRC images separately in random order, and then they reviewed both images together 8 weeks later. The readers graded the quality of visualization of each biliary duct and the entire biliary tree (overall rating) using a five-point scale. Images with a grade of 3 or 4 were considered to provide sufficient visualization for clinical application, and those with a grade of 2 or less were considered to provide insufficient visualization. Laboratory data, Child-Pugh classification, and model for end-stage liver disease score were also recorded.
RESULTS: The overall rating of T2W-MRC was significantly higher than that of CE-MRC (p < 0.001), although combined T2W/CE-MRC provided better visualization of biliary segments than T2W-MRC alone (p = 0.025). There were no significant differences between liver function and the overall rating of CE-MRC.
CONCLUSION: CE-MRC is not superior to conventional T2W-MRC with respect to biliary visualization in patients with liver cirrhosis. However, a combination of T2W-MRC and CE-MRC provides significantly better visualization of biliary structures than T2W-MRC alone.