HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hom, B. K. Articles by Grant, E. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hom, B. K. Articles by Grant, E. G.

Prospective Evaluation of Vascular Complications after Liver Transplantation: Comparison of Conventional and Microbubble Contrast-enhanced US¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology (B.K.H., R.S., S.L.P., M.D.K., Z.A., J.K.W., E.G.G.) and Surgery (R.R.S.), University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine, USC University Hospital, 1500 San Pablo St, Los Angeles, CA 90033. From the 2004 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received April 14, 2005; revision requested June 13; revision received July 25; accepted September 1; final version accepted February 1, 2006. Supported by a grant from GE Healthcare. Address correspondence to E.G.G. (e-mail: edgrant{at}usc.edu).

Purpose: To prospectively compare diagnostic performance of conventional Doppler ultrasonography (US) and microbubble contrast material–enhanced US for assessment of vascular complications after liver transplantation, with clinical follow-up or angiography as reference standard.

Materials and Methods: This study was approved by institutional review board and was HIPAA compliant. Written informed consent was obtained. Seventy-two patients (49 men, 23 women; average age, 52.3 years) were included in this study. Patients who had undergone liver transplantation underwent conventional color Doppler and contrast-enhanced US of the liver. Quality of hepatic artery (HA) and portal vein (PV) visualization, contrast material arrival time, and time for complete evaluation of vasculature were compared for both techniques. McNemar test was used to compare vascular flow visualization scores; Student t test was used to compare mean study times with both techniques. Patients without HA flow at Doppler US underwent angiography; those with flow were followed up clinically. McNemar test was used to compare sensitivity of both techniques.

Results: Contrast-enhanced US helped significantly improve flow visualization in hepatic vessels (P < .001). Mean contrast material arrival time was 13.7 seconds ± 3.8 (standard deviation) in proper HA and 20.7 seconds ± 6.3 in PV. Mean study time decreased from 27.4 minutes ± 13.9 to 9.3 minutes ± 4.5 (P < .01). Doppler US failed to depict HA flow in eight patients; contrast-enhanced US showed flow in six and no flow in two of these patients. Follow-up results confirmed contrast-enhanced US findings. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for Doppler US were 91.3%, 100%, and 91.5%, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of contrast-enhanced US were all 100%. Sensitivity and accuracy values of the two techniques were significantly different (P < .014); there was no significant difference in specificity (P > .99)

Conclusion: Contrast-enhanced US helped improve flow visualization in the HA and PV, decrease scanning time, and correctly differentiate between thrombosis and a patent artery in patients without HA flow at conventional Doppler US.

© RSNA, 2006

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. H. M. Caiado, R. Blasbalg, A. S. Z. Marcelino, M. da Cunha Pinho, M. C. Chammas, C. da Costa Leite, G. G. Cerri, A. C. de Oliveira, T. Bacchella, and M. C. C. Machado Complications of Liver Transplantation: Multimodality Imaging Approach RadioGraphics, September 1, 2007; 27(5): 1401 - 1417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]