Angiography with cone‐beam CT versus contrast‐enhanced MRI for living donor transplant imaging: Is MRI enough?

Abstract

AbstractThe purpose of this study is to compare the subjective and objective quality and confidence between conventional angiography with cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the preoperative evaluation of potential donors for living donor liver transplant. Seventeen patients undergoing preoperative donor evaluation for living donor liver transplantation that underwent angiography with CBCT and contrast‐enhanced MRI for evaluation of hepatic vascular anatomy were included in the study. Four attending radiologists interpreted anonymized, randomized angiography with CBCT images and MRIs, rating the diagnostic quality and confidence of their interpretation (on a 3‐point scale) for each element, as well as clinically relevant measurements. Overall, the readers rated the quality of angiography with CBCT to be higher than that of MRI (median [interquartile range] = 3 (2, 3) vs. 2 (1–3), p < 0.001) across all patients. Readers of angiography with CBCT had more confidence in their interpretations as an average of all elements evaluated than the MRI readers (3 (3) vs. 3 (2, 3), p < 0.001). When the same reader interpreted both MRI and CBCT, the right hepatic artery diameter (3.8 mm ± 0.72 mm vs. 4.5 mm ± 1.2 mm, p < 0.005) and proper hepatic artery diameter (4.43 mm ± 0.98 mm vs. 5.4 mm ± 1.05 mm, p < 0.003) were significantly different between MRI and CBCT. There was poor interrater reliability for determining segment IV arterial supply for both modalities (κ < 0.2). Angiography with CBCT provides higher subjective diagnostic quality and greater radiologist confidence than MRI. The difference in measurements between CBCT and MRI when the same reader reads both studies suggests CBCT adds additional information over MRI evaluation alone.