Literature DB >> 21914073

A comparison of 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy and microbubble-enhanced ultrasound for characterizing hepatitis c-related liver disease.

A K P Lim1, N Patel, R J Eckersley, J Fitzpatrick, M M E Crossey, G Hamilton, R D Goldin, H C Thomas, W Vennart, D O Cosgrove, S D Taylor-Robinson.   

Abstract

We compared in vivo hepatic (31) P magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((31) P MRS) and hepatic vein transit times (HVTT) using contrast-enhanced ultrasound with a microbubble agent to assess the severity of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver disease. Forty-six patients with biopsy-proven HCV-related liver disease and nine healthy volunteers had (31) P MRS and HVTT performed on the same day. (31) P MR spectra were obtained at 1.5 T. Peak areas were calculated for metabolites, including phosphomonoesters (PME) and phosphodiesters (PDE). Patients also had the microbubble ultrasound contrast agent, Levovist (2 g), injected into an antecubital vein, and time-intensity Doppler ultrasound signals of the right and middle hepatic veins were measured. The HVTT was calculated as the time from injection to a sustained rise in Doppler signal 10% greater than baseline. The shortest times were used for analysis. Based on Ishak histological scoring, there were 15 patients with mild hepatitis, 20 with moderate/severe hepatitis and 11 with cirrhosis. With increasing severity of disease, the PME/PDE ratio was steadily elevated, while the HVTT showed a monotonic decrease. Both imaging modalities could separate patients with cirrhosis from the mild and moderate/severe hepatitis groups. No statistical difference was observed in the accuracy of each test to denote mild, moderate/severe hepatitis and cirrhosis (Fisher's exact test P =1.00). (31) P MRS and HVTT show much promise as noninvasive imaging tests for assessing the severity of chronic liver disease. Both are equally effective and highly sensitive in detecting cirrhosis.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21914073     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2893.2011.01455.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Viral Hepat        ISSN: 1352-0504            Impact factor:   3.728


  6 in total

1.  The diagnostic efficacy of quantitative liver MR imaging with diffusion-weighted, SWI, and hepato-specific contrast-enhanced sequences in staging liver fibrosis--a multiparametric approach.

Authors:  Diana Feier; Csilla Balassy; Nina Bastati; Romana Fragner; Friedrich Wrba; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  [Ultrasound diagnostics of diffuse liver diseases].

Authors:  E M Jung; P Wiggermann; C Stroszczynski; M F Reiser; D-A Clevert
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 3.  [Functional MR imaging of the liver].

Authors:  A Wibmer; R Nolz; M Trauner; A Ba-Ssalamah
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  1H Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy Predicts Hepatocellular Carcinoma in a Subset of Patients With Liver Cirrhosis: A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Dan Wang; Yuehua Li
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.889

Review 5.  Diagnostic Accuracy of Hepatic Vein Arrival Time Performed with Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography for Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Gaeun Kim; Kwang Yong Shim; Soon Koo Baik
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2017-01-15       Impact factor: 4.519

6.  Evaluation of Rabbits Liver Fibrosis Using Gd-DTPA-BMA of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Qian Cui; FengTai He; Jiawei Hu; Shuo Li; Dongmei Guo; Xu Bie; Wei Liu; Yiping Zhao
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2021-09-17       Impact factor: 2.629

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.