The efficiency of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography in living donor liver transplantation: a preliminary study

How Can New Imaging Modalities Help in the Practice of Radiology?

The purpose of this article was to provide an up-to-date review on the spectrum of new imaging applications in the practice of radiology. New imaging techniques have been developed with the objective of obtaining structural and functional analyses of different body systems. Recently, new imaging modalities have aroused the interest of many researchers who are studying the applicability of these modalities in the evaluation of different organs and diseases. In this review article, we present the efficiency and utilization of current imaging modalities in daily radiological practice.

Comparison of gadoxetic acid to gadobenate dimeglumine for assessment of biliary anatomy of potential liver donors

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.