SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. An SK, Lee JM, Suh KS, et al. (2006) Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced liver MRI as the sole preoperative imaging technique: a prospective study of living liver donors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:1223–1233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Agopian VG, Petrowsky H, Kaldas FM, et al. (2013) The evolution of liver transplantation during 3 decades: analysis of 5347 consecutive liver transplants at a single center. Annal Surg 258:409–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Basaran C, Agildere AM, Donmez FY, et al. (2008) MR cholangiopancreatography with T2-weighted prospective acquisition correction turbo spin-echo sequence of the biliary anatomy of potential living liver transplant donors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:1527–1533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Artioli D, Tagliabue M, Aseni P, Sironi S, Vanzulli A (2010) Detection of biliary and vascular anatomy in living liver donors: value of gadobenate dimeglumine enhanced MR and MDCT angiography. Eur J Radiol 76:e1–e5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dahlstrom N, Persson A, Albiin N, Smedby O, Brismar TB (2007) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography with Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA in healthy subjects. Acta Radiol 48:362–368

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL, et al. (2000) Safety of donors in live donor liver transplantation using right lobe grafts. Arch Surg 135:336–340

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fayad LM, Holland GA, Bergin D, et al. (2003) Functional magnetic resonance cholangiography (fMRC) of the gallbladder and biliary tree with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography. J Magn Reson Imaging 18:449–460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Girometti R, Cereser L, Como G, Zuiani C, Bazzocchi M (2008) Biliary complications after orthotopic liver transplantation: MRCP findings. Abdom Imaging 33:542–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Goyen M, Barkhausen J, Debatin JF, et al. (2002) Right-lobe living related liver transplantation: evaluation of a comprehensive magnetic resonance imaging protocol for assessing potential donors. Liver Transplant 8:241–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Renz JF, Kin CJ, Saggi BH, Emond JC (2005) Outcomes of living donor liver transplantation. Philadelphia: Elsevier, pp 713–724

    Google Scholar 

  11. Florman S, Miller CM (2006) Live donor liver transplantation. Liver Transplant 12:499–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hahn LD, Emre SH, Israel GM (2014) Radiographic features of potential donor livers that precluded donation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:W343–W348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lim JS, Kim MJ, Kim JH, et al. (2005) Preoperative MRI of potential living-donor-related liver transplantation using a single dose of gadobenate dimeglumine. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185:424–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schroeder TMM, Debatin JF, Goyen M, Nadalin S, Ruehm SG (2005) All-in-one imaging protocols for the evaluation of potential living liver donors: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and multidetector computed tomography. Liver Transplant 11:776–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee MS, Lee JY, Kim SH, et al. (2011) Gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for biliary and vascular evaluations in preoperative living liver donors: comparison with gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 33:149–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fulcher AS, Szucs RA, Bassignani MJ, Marcos A (2001) Right lobe living donor liver transplantation: preoperative evaluation of the donor with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:1483–1491

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mangold S, Bretschneider C, Fenchel M, et al. (2012) MRI for evaluation of potential living liver donors: a new approach including contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography. Abdom Imaging 37:244–251

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee VS, Morgan GR, Teperman LW, et al. (2001) MR imaging as the sole preoperative imaging modality for right hepatectomy: a prospective study of living adult-to-adult liver donor candidates. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:1475–1482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Itamoto T, Emoto K, Mitsuta H, et al. (2006) Safety of donor right hepatectomy for adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. Transplant Int 19:177–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Goldman J, Florman S, Varotti G, et al. (2003) Noninvasive preoperative evaluation of biliary anatomy in right-lobe living donors with mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MR cholangiography. Transplant Proc 35:1421–1422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee VS, Krinsky GA, Nazzaro CA, et al. (2004) Defining intrahepatic biliary anatomy in living liver transplant donor candidates at mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MR cholangiography versus conventional T2-weighted MR cholangiography. Radiology 233:659–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ogul H, Kantarci M, Pirimoglu B, et al. (2014) The efficiency of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography in living donor liver transplantation: a preliminary study. Clin Transplant 28:354–360

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bollow M, Taupitz M, Hamm B, et al. (1997) Gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-DTPA as a hepatobiliary contrast agent for use in MR cholangiography: results of an in vivo phase-I clinical evaluation. Eur Radiol 7:126–132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann HJ (2005) Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 40:715–724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kinner S, Steinweg V, Maderwald S, et al. (2014) Bile duct evaluation of potential living liver donors with Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MR cholangiography: Single-dose, double dose or half-dose contrast enhanced imaging. Eur J Radiol 83:763–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lim JS, Kim MJ, Myoung S, et al. (2008) MR cholangiography for evaluation of hilar branching anatomy in transplantation of the right hepatic lobe from a living donor. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:537–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kinner S, Steinweg V, Maderwald S, et al. (2014) Comparison of different magnetic resonance cholangiography techniques in living liver donors including Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced T1-weighted sequences. PloS One 9:e113882

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Ringe KI, Husarik DB, Gupta RT, Boll DT, Merkle EM (2011) Hepatobiliary transit times of gadoxetate disodium (Primovist(R)) for protocol optimization of comprehensive MR imaging of the biliary system–what is normal? Eur J Radiol 79:201–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ringe KI, Husarik DB, Sirlin CB, Merkle EM (2010) Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: part 1, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the noncirrhotic liver. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:13–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kirchin MA, Pirovano GP, Spinazzi A (1998) Gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA). An overview. Invest Radiol 33:798–809

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schuhmann-Giampieri G, Mahler M, Roll G, Maibauer R, Schmitz S (1997) Pharmacokinetics of the liver-specific contrast agent Gd-EOB-DTPA in relation to contrast-enhanced liver imaging in humans. J Clin Pharmacol 37:587–596

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bashir MR, Breault SR, Braun R, et al. (2014) Optimal timing and diagnostic adequacy of hepatocyte phase imaging with gadoxetate-enhanced liver MRI. Acad Radiol 21:726–732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Seale MK, Catalano OA, Saini S, Hahn PF, Sahani DV (2009) Hepatobiliary-specific MR contrast agents: role in imaging the liver and biliary tree. Radiographics 29:1725–1748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gupta RT, Iseman CM, Leyendecker JR, et al. (2012) Diagnosis of focal nodular hyperplasia with MRI: multicenter retrospective study comparing gadobenate dimeglumine to gadoxetate disodium. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:35–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zech CJ, Grazioli L, Jonas E, et al. (2009) Health-economic evaluation of three imaging strategies in patients with suspected colorectal liver metastases: Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI vs. extracellular contrast media-enhanced MRI and 3-phase MDCT in Germany, Italy and Sweden. Eur Radiol 19(3):753–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Chiang HJ, Hsu HW, Chen PC, et al. (2012) Magnetic resonance cholangiography in living donor liver transplantation: comparison of preenhanced and post-gadolinium-enhanced methods. Transplant Proc 44:324–327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Body MRI, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029, USA

    Sara Lewis, Prasanna Vasudevan, Manjil Chatterji, Cecilia Besa & Bachir Taouli

  2. Translational and Molecular Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029, USA

    Cecilia Besa, Guido Jajamovich & Bachir Taouli

  3. Recanati Miller Transplantation Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029, USA

    Marcelo Facciuto

Authors
  1. Sara Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prasanna Vasudevan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manjil Chatterji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cecilia Besa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Guido Jajamovich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marcelo Facciuto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bachir Taouli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Lewis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Taouli has received research funding from Guerbet, Inc. Dr. Taouli is a consultant for Median Technologies. Dr. Lewis declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dr. Vasudevan declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dr. Chatterji declares that he has no conflict of interest. Dr. Besa declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dr. Jajamovich declares that he has no conflict of interest. Dr. Facciuto declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

The Institutional Review Board at our institution approved this single-center retrospective study and the need for informed consent was waived.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lewis, S., Vasudevan, P., Chatterji, M. et al. Comparison of gadoxetic acid to gadobenate dimeglumine for assessment of biliary anatomy of potential liver donors. Abdom Radiol 41, 1300–1309 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0693-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0693-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation