使用亲肝造影剂进行磁共振成像以评估肝脏功能的可能性
- 作者: Ageeva S.F.1, Sinitsyn V.E.1, Mershina E.A.1, Rucheva N.A.2, Petrova E.I.3
-
隶属关系:
- Lomonosov Moscow State University
- V.I. Shumakov National Medical Research Center of Transplantology and Artificial Organs
- Industry Clinical Diagnostic Center of Gazprom PJSC
- 期: 卷 5, 编号 2 (2024)
- 页面: 137-148
- 栏目: 原创性科研成果
- URL: https://bakhtiniada.ru/DD/article/view/264828
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/DD624826
- ID: 264828
如何引用文章
全文:
详细
论证。评估各种疾病的肝功能仍然是一项重要的临床任务。使用亲肝造影剂的磁共振成像来评估肝功能具有相当大的科学和实用意义。
目的是研究根据亲肝造影剂 磁共振成像获得的指数对肝脏进行功能评估的可能性。
材料和方法。对接受静脉注射钆塞酸造影剂磁共振成像的患者数据进行了分析。患者分为两组:肝功能受损组(第一组)和肝功能正常组(第二组)。根据磁共振成像数据评估了以下参数:肝脏信号强度、肝脏信号强度与脾脏信号强度的比值以及肝脏信号强度与门静脉管腔信号强度的比值。对反映肝功能的实验室血液检查指标进行了评估:总胆红素、白蛋白、丙氨酸氨基转移酶、天门冬氨酸氨基转移酶、γ-谷氨酰转肽酶、碱性磷酸酶、凝血酶原时间。我们分析了组间磁共振参数差异的统计学意义,评估了肝脏信号强度值与实验室血液检查数据之间是否存在相关性。
结果。对 53 名患者(25 名男性和 28 名女性,年龄在 24 至 84 岁之间)的数据进行了分析。第一组包括 19 人,第二组包括 34 人。研究组之间的肝脏信号强度和肝脏信号强度与脾脏信号强度的比值差异具有统计学意义。第一组的肝信号强度值为 919.05 [669.65;1258.35],第二组为 1525.13 [1460.5; 1631.4](P=0.0000001)。第一组肝脏信号强度与脾脏信号强度的比值为 1.2 [1.04;1.7],第二组为 1.7 [1.46;1.96](P=0.00076)。第一组肝脏信号强度与门静脉管腔信号强度的比值为 1.44 [1.29; 1.83],第二组为 1.6 [1.43;1.83](P=0.1)。对肝脏信号强度与总胆红素(r=-0.61;P=0.000001)、白蛋白(r=0.13;P=0.61)、天冬氨酸氨基转移酶(r=-0.57;P=0.000009)、丙氨酸氨基转移酶(r=-0.44; P=0.001)、碱性磷酸酶(r=-0.45;P=0.0007)、γ-谷氨酰转肽酶(r=-0.5;P=0.0003)、凝血酶原时 间(r=-0.34;P=0.04)的相关性也进行了评估。在 Chaddock 标上,肝脏信号强度指数与总胆红素、天门冬氨酸氨基转移酶值之间存在明显的相关性。肝脏信号强度指数与丙氨酸氨基转移酶、碱性磷酸酶、γ-谷氨酰转肽酶、凝血酶原时间之间的相关性中等。
结论。磁共振成像参数(肝脏信号强度及其与脾脏信号强度的比值)在肝脏功能评估中的有效性得到了证实。研究并未证实肝脏信号强度与门静脉管腔信号强度的比值等参数的有效性假设。除白蛋白外,肝脏信号强度值与反映肝功能的实验室血液化验指标之间建立了统计学意义上的反相关关系。结果表明,磁共振成像可用于肝脏功能评估。
作者简介
Sofiia F. Ageeva
Lomonosov Moscow State University
编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: son.ageeva13@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0003-9563-6756
SPIN 代码: 9695-3717
俄罗斯联邦, Moscow
Valentin E. Sinitsyn
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Email: vsini@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5649-2193
SPIN 代码: 8449-6590
MD, Dr. Sci. (Medicine), Professor
俄罗斯联邦, MoscowElena A. Mershina
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Email: elena_mershina@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1266-4926
SPIN 代码: 6897-9641
MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine)
俄罗斯联邦, MoscowNatalia A. Rucheva
V.I. Shumakov National Medical Research Center of Transplantology and Artificial Organs
Email: rna1969@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8063-4462
SPIN 代码: 2196-8300
MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine)
俄罗斯联邦, MoscowEkaterina I. Petrova
Industry Clinical Diagnostic Center of Gazprom PJSC
Email: doc_mri@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0005-0355-8098
MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine)
俄罗斯联邦, Moscow参考
- Peng Y, Qi X, Guo X. Child–Pugh Versus MELD Score for the Assessment of Prognosis in Liver Cirrhosis. Medicine. 2016;95(8):e2877. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002877
- Likar YuN, Akhaladze DG, Rumyantsev AG. Hepatobiliary scintigraphy in the preoperative assessment of the future remnant liver function (literature review and own examples). The Russian Journal of Pediatric Hematology аnd Oncology. 2020;7(1):62–69. EDN: VWDZUW doi: 10.21682/2311-1267-2020-7-1-62-69
- Chernyak V, Fowler KJ, Heiken JP, Sirlin CB. Use of gadoxetate disodium in patients with chronic liver disease and its implications for liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS). Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2019;49(5):1236–1252. doi: 10.1002/jmri.26540
- Welle CL, Guglielmo FF, Venkatesh SK. MRI of the liver: choosing the right contrast agent. Abdominal Radiology. 2020;45(2):384–392. doi: 10.1007/s00261-019-02162-5
- Furlan A, Borhani AA, Heller MT, Yu RK, Tublin ME. Non-focal liver signal abnormalities on hepatobiliary phase of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging: a review and differential diagnosis. Abdominal Radiology. 2016;41(7):1399–1410. doi: 10.1007/s00261-016-0685-z
- Cho SH, Kang UR, Kim JD, Han YS, Choi DL. The value of gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MR imaging for predicting posthepatectomy liver failure after major hepatic resection: A preliminary study. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80(2):e195–e200. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.08.008
- Collettini F, Elkilany A, Seta MD, et al. MR imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: prospective intraindividual head-to-head comparison of the contrast agents gadoxetic acid and gadoteric acid. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):18583. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-23397-1
- Galle PR, Forner A, Llovet JM, et al. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2018;69(1):182–236. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.019
- Yang M, Zhang Y, Zhao W, et al. Evaluation of liver function using liver parenchyma, spleen and portal vein signal intensities during the hepatobiliary phase in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. BMC Med Imaging. 2020;20(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s12880-020-00519-7
- Bastati N, Wibmer A, Tamandl D, et al. Assessment of Orthotopic Liver Transplant Graft Survival on Gadoxetic Acid–Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using Qualitative and Quantitative Parameters. Invest Radiol. 2016;51(11):728–734. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000286
- Mnatsakanyan MK, Rubtsova NA, Kabanov DO, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging with gadoxetic acid in the assessment of the functional reserve of the liver. Russian Electronic Journal of Radiology. 2022;12(1):43–55. EDN: GXFGZS doi: 10.21569/2222-7415-2022-12-1-43-55
- Zhang W, Wang X, Miao Y, Hu C, Zhao W. Liver function correlates with liver-to-portal vein contrast ratio during the hepatobiliary phase with Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR at 3 Tesla. Abdominal Radiology. 2018;43(9):2262–2269. doi: 10.1007/s00261-018-1462-y
- Lee NK, Kim S, Kim GH, et al. Significance of the “Delayed hyperintense portal vein sign” in the hepatobiliary phase MRI obtained with Gd-EOB-DTPA. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2012;36(3):678–685. doi: 10.1002/jmri.23700
- Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22(7):707–710. doi: 10.1007/BF01709751
- Zaccherini G, Weiss E, Moreau R. Acute-on-chronic liver failure: Definitions, pathophysiology and principles of treatment. JHEP Reports. 2021;3(1):100176. doi: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2020.100176
补充文件
