肝脏超声造影、增强CT及增强MRI检查肝脏局灶性病变的安全性及耐受性比较

刘佳; 李毓红; 尹庭辉; 邹旻红; 吴莉莉; 郑荣琴

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-7445.2016.03.012

肝脏超声造影、增强CT及增强MRI检查肝脏局灶性病变的安全性及耐受性比较

doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7445.2016.03.012

510630 广州，中山大学附属第三医院超声科(刘佳、尹庭辉、邹旻红、吴莉莉、郑荣琴)；南华大学附属第一医院超声科(李毓红)

基金项目:

广东省产学研结合项目 2013B090200020

详细信息

通讯作者:
郑荣琴，Email：zssyzrq@163.com

中图分类号: R617, R445.1
计量
- 文章访问数: 401
- HTML全文浏览量: 247
- PDF下载量: 9
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2016-02-20
- 网络出版日期: 2021-01-19
- 刊出日期: 2016-05-15

Comparison of safety and tolerance of CEUS, CECT and CEMRI for detection of focal liver lesions

Department of Ultrasonography, the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510630, China

More Information

Corresponding author: Zheng Rongqin, Email:zssyzrq@163.com

摘要

摘要: 目的比较超声造影(CEUS)与增强CT(CECT)、增强MRI(CEMRI)检查肝脏局灶性病变(FLLs)的安全性及耐受性。方法收集2015年7月在中山大学附属第三医院同时行肝脏CEUS和CECT或CEMRI的肝病患者42例，其中37例同时接受CEUS和CECT检查，36例同时接受CEUS和CEMRI检查。观察检查结束后30 min内有否造影剂不良反应，并采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评估检查过程中的不适。结果 CEUS和CEMRI的造影剂不良反应发生率低于CECT(0比11%)。患者做CEUS的VAS评分均低于做CECT或做CEMRI的评分(均为P < 0.05)。结论肝脏CEUS安全性高且耐受性好，是检查FLLs的首选方法。
- 超声造影 /
- 增强CT /
- 增强MRI /
- 安全性 /
- 耐受性
Abstract: Objective To compare the safety and tolerance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) and contrast-enhanced MRI (CEMRI) in the detection of focal liver lesions(FLLs). Methods Clinical data of 42 patients undergoing hepatic CEUS and CECT or CEMRI in the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University during July 2015 were collected. Among them, 37 received CEUS and CECT, and 36 underwent CEUS and CEMRI simultaneously. The contrast agent-induced adverse reaction was observed within 30 min after imaging detection. The severity of discomforts during examination was assessed by visual analog scales (VAS). Results The incidence of adverse reaction caused by CEUS and CEMRI contrast agents was lower than that by the CECT contrast agent (0 vs. 11%). The VAS score of patients undergoing CEUS was significantly lower than those of their counterparts receiving CECT or CEMRI (both P < 0.05). Conclusions CEUS is a preferential option for the detection of FLLs with higher safety and better tolerance.
- Contrast-enhanced ultrasound /
- Contrast-enhanced computed tomography /
- Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging /
- Safety /
- Tolerance

HTML全文

参考文献(18)

[1]	Quaia E. The real capabilities of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the characterization of solid focal liver lesions[J]. Eur Radiol, 2011, 21(3):457-462. doi: 10.1007/s00330-010-2007-0
[2]	Quaia E. Solid focal liver lesions indeterminate by contrast-enhanced CT or MR imaging: the added diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound[J]. Abdom Imaging, 2012, 37(4):580-590. doi: 10.1007/s00261-011-9788-8
[3]	Quaia E, De Paoli L, Angileri R, et al. Indeterminate solid hepatic lesions identified on non-diagnostic contrast-enhanced computed tomography: assessment of the additional diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the non-cirrhotic liver[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2014, 83(3):456-462. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.12.012
[4]	Sporea I, Badea R, Martie A, et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasound for the characterization of focal liver lesions[J]. Med Ultrason, 2011, 13(1):38-44. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=2418127345&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn
[5]	Dhamija E, Paul SB. Role of contrast enhanced ultrasound in hepatic imaging[J]. Trop Gastroenterol, 2014, 35(3):141-151. doi: 10.7869/tg
[6]	Sporea I, Martie A, Bota S, et al. Characterization of focal liver lesions using contrast enhanced ultrasound as a first line method: a large monocentric experience[J]. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis, 2014, 23(1):57-63. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=2188594106&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn
[7]	Joshi P, George RA, Tyagi AK, et al. Efficacy of contrast enhanced grey scale ultrasound in characterisation of hepatic focal lesions: a pilot study[J]. Med J Armed Forces India, 2014, 70(3):230-236. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2014.05.004
[8]	Friedrich-Rust M, Klopffleisch T, Nierhoff J, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the differentiation of benign and malignant focal liver lesions: a meta-analysis[J]. Liver Int, 2013, 33(5):739-755. doi: 10.1111/liv.12115
[9]	Pradubpongsa P, Dhana N, Jongjarearnprasert K, et al. Adverse reactions to iodinated contrast media: prevalence, risk factors and outcome-the results of a 3-year period[J]. Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol, 2013, 31(4):299-306. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=2076428633&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn
[10]	Bruder O, Schneider S, Pilz G, et al. 2015 update on acute adverse reactions to gadolinium based contrast agents in cardiovascular MR. largemulti-national and multi-ethnical population experience with 37788 patients from the EuroCMR Registry[J]. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson, 2015, 17:58. doi: 10.1186/s12968-015-0168-3
[11]	Fakhran S, Alhilali L, Kale H, et al. Assessment of rates of acute adverse reactions to gadobenate dimeglumine: review of more than 130, 000 administrations in 7.5 years[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2015, 204(4):703-706. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13430
[12]	Weller A, Barber JL, Olsen OE. Gadolinium and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: an update[J]. Pediatr Nephrol, 2014, 29(10):1927-1937. doi: 10.1007/s00467-013-2636-z
[13]	Idée JM, Fretellier N, Robic C, et al. The role of gadolinium chelates in the mechanism of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: a critical update[J]. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2014, 44(10):895-913. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2014.955568
[14]	Soulez G, Bloomgarden DC, Rofsky NM, et al. Prospective cohort study of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patients with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease undergoing MRI with injected gadobenate dimeglumine or gadoteridol[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2015, 205(3):469-478. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.14268
[15]	Zhang B, Liang L, Chen W, et al. An updated study to determine association between gadolinium-based contrast agents and nephrogenicsystemic fibrosis[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(6):e0129720. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129720
[16]	Thomsen HS, Morcos SK, Almén T, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis and gadolinium-based contrast media: updated ESUR Contrast Medium Safety Committee guidelines[J]. Eur Radiol, 2013, 23(2):307-318. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2597-9
[17]	Solivetti FM, Elia F, Musicco F, et al. Anaphylactic shock induced by sulphur hexafluoride in an individual with no history of heart disease: case report and literature review[J]. Ultraschall Med, 2012, 33(6):597-598. doi: 10.1055/s-00000089
[18]	Levano JA, Jimenez MA, Laiseca A, et al. Anaphylactic shock due to SonoVue[J]. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol, 2012, 108(3):208-209. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2011.12.011