Cargando…

The Influence of Bowel Preparation on ADC Measurements: Comparison between Conventional DWI and DWIBS Sequences

Background and objectives: The aim of the study was to assess whether there were differences between apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and diffusion-weighted imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) sequences in non-prepared and prepared b...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Apine, Ilze, Baduna, Monta, Pitura, Reinis, Pokrotnieks, Juris, Krumina, Gaida
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6681204/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31330916
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/medicina55070394
Descripción
Sumario:Background and objectives: The aim of the study was to assess whether there were differences between apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and diffusion-weighted imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) sequences in non-prepared and prepared bowels before and after preparation with an enteric hyperosmolar agent, to assess whether ADC measurements have the potential to avoid bowel preparation and whether ADC-DWIBS has advantages over ADC-DWI. Materials and Methods: 106 adult patients without evidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) underwent magnetic resonance (MR) enterography before and after bowel preparation. ADC-DWI and ADC-DWIBS values were measured in the intestinal and colonic walls demonstrating high signal intensity (SI) at DWI tracking images of b = 800 s/mm(2) before and after preparation. Results: There were significant difference (p < 0.0001) in both ADC-DWI and ADC-DWIBS results between non-prepared and prepared jejunum for DWI being 1.09 × 10(−3) mm(2)/s and 1.76 × 10(−3) mm(2)/s, respectively, and for DWIBS being 0.91 × 10(−3) mm(2)/s and 1.75 × 10(−3) mm(2)/s, respectively. Both ADC-DWI and DWIBS also showed significant difference between non-prepared and prepared colon (p < 0.0001), with DWI values 1.41 × 10(−3) mm(2)/s and 2.13 × 10(−3) mm(2)/s, and DWIBS—1.01 × 10(−3) mm(2)/s and 2.04 × 10(−3) mm(2)/s, respectively. No significant difference between ADC-DWI and ADC-DWIBS was found in prepared jejunum (p = 0.84) and prepared colon (p = 0.58), whereas a significant difference was found in non-prepared jejunum and non-prepared colon (p = 0.0001 in both samples). Conclusions: ADC between DWI and DWIBS does not differ in prepared bowel walls but demonstrates a difference in non-prepared bowel. ADC in non-prepared bowel is lower than in prepared bowel and possible overlap with the ADC range of IBD is possible in non-prepared bowel. ADC-DWIBS has no advantage over ADC-DWI in regard to IBD assessment.