CT evaluation of living liver donor: Can 100-kVp plus iterative reconstruction protocol provide accurate liver volume and vascular anatomy for liver transplantation with reduced radiation and contrast dose?

Investigation of the Utility and Safety of Dynamic Computed Tomography with Vasodilators

Background

Dynamic computed tomography (CT) angiography is useful for evaluating of hepatic vascularity. Although vasodilators increase hepatic blood flow, the utility of dynamic CT with vasodilators is unclear. Here we investigated the utility and safety of dynamic CT with vasodilators.

Methods

A prospective case-control radiographic evaluation using abdominal dynamic CT with and without vasodilator was performed at a single center between October 2015 and September 2016. We compared the CT values in Hounsfield units of the aorta; celiac artery; and common, right, and left hepatic arteries in the arterial phase and the main trunk; right and left branches of the portal vein; and right, middle, and left hepatic veins in the portal phase with and without vasodilators. The region of interest was set in each element of the liver vasculature. Four radiological technologists independently and visually compared the scores of the portal vein (P-score) and hepatic vein (V-score) on a 5-point scale with and without vasodilators.

Results

The CT values of arteries and veins using vasodilators were significantly higher than those without vasodilators. With and without vasodilators, the P-scores were 3.1 ± 1.2 and 4.0 ± 1.1 (P < 0.05) and the V-scores were 3.3 ± 1.4 and 4.3 ± 1.0 (P < 0.05). Only one patient with vasodilator use had transient hypotension and recovered immediately without medication.

Conclusion

Dynamic CT with vasodilators can provides better visualization of vascular structures.

Assessment of iterative image reconstruction on kidney and liver donors: Potential role of adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D (AIDR 3D) technology

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiation exposure levels in two different types of subjects including liver and kidney donors in diagnostic assessment of transplant operation and also the significance of dose reduction on total effective dose.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A number of Sixty subjects (40 males and 20 females, average age of 35 ± 10 years) were randomly prospectively recruited and equally divided into two distinct groups namely kidney donors (KD, 24 M and 6 F) and liver donors (LD, 21 M and 9 female). Kidney donors were divided into full dose (KFD, n = 20) group and low dose (KLD, n = 10) group. They had undergone dynamic renal scan using Tc99 m-DTPA, CT renal angiography and x-ray plain radiograph. Liver donors were divided into full dose (LFD, n = 20) and low dose (LLD, n = 10) groups and performed CT liver volumetry. The CT dose index (CTDIvol), dose length product (DLP), total milli-ampere product time mAs, effective dose and image noise index were measured in all subjects of kidney and liver donors comparing full dose and low dose protocols.

RESULTS

In comparison of all subjects of kidney donor groups (KFD vs KLD), the parameters (mAs = 16386.8 ± 3140.7 vs 2830.286 ± 831.676), (CTDIvol = 183.19 ± 32.58 mGy vs. 45.5 ± 13.3 mGy), DLP = 2884 ± 859.0 mGy.cm vs. 1437.5 ± 399 mGy.cm) and (effective dose = 49.0 ± 9.0 mSv vs. 18.9 mSv±5.7 mSv) were significant, p < 0.0005. Statistical evaluation of liver donors groups (LFD vs LLD) showed that (mAs = 14348.8 ± 4571.8 vs 3123.357 ± 794.5), (CTDIvol = 333.6 ± 59.5 mGy vs. 51.4 ± 13 mGy), (DLP = 3268.3 ± 604.3 mGy.cm vs 1260.5 ± 404.6 mGy.cm) and (effective dose = 43.3 mSv±12.9 mSv vs. 21.6 ± 5.9 mSv) are statistically significant, p < 0.0005. Nevertheless, the comparative evaluation of the image quality noise index of KFD vs KLD groups and LFD vs LLD showed a no statistical significance p > 0.05.

CONCLUSION

Renal and liver donors bear a relatively significant radiation dose due to diagnostic evaluation and patient management. The CT iterative reconstruction using AIDR3D proved very valuable tool in dose reduction such that it can reduce 37% in kidney donors and 48% in liver donors while able to maintain an acceptable image quality. Monitoring of those subjects on the clinical and radiobiological levels are recommended.