Volume 7 Issue 3
May  2016
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Article Navigation >  ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION  > 2016  >  7(3): 219-221, 242
Liu Jia, Li Yuhong, Yin Tinghui, et al. Comparison of safety and tolerance of CEUS, CECT and CEMRI for detection of focal liver lesions[J]. ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION, 2016, 7(3): 219-221, 242. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7445.2016.03.012
Citation: Liu Jia, Li Yuhong, Yin Tinghui, et al. Comparison of safety and tolerance of CEUS, CECT and CEMRI for detection of focal liver lesions[J]. ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION, 2016, 7(3): 219-221, 242. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7445.2016.03.012
shu

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

doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7445.2016.03.012

  • 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
  • Received Date: 2016-02-20
    Available Online: 2021-01-19
  • Publish Date: 2016-05-15
    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.

     

    • FullText(HTML)
  • loading
    • References(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
    • Relative Articles
    • Supplements(0)
    • Cited By
  • 加载中

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索
    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML

    Article Metrics

    Article views (407) PDF downloads(9) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related

    WeChat Subscription Account

    Wechat Service Account

    Contact Us
    • Tel：020-38736410
    • Email: organtranspl@163.com
    • Address：The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, No. 600, Tianhe Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou
    • Editorial Office of Organ Transplantation  粤ICP备2021030844号
    Links

    Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co. Ltd    

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return