Advertisement

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine

, Volume 19, Issue 10, pp 865–870 | Cite as

Liver transplant rejection and cholestasis: comparison of technetium 99m-diisopropyl iminodiacetic acid hepatobiliary imaging with liver biopsy

  • Claudia M. Engeler
  • Christopher C. Kuni
  • Raouf Nakhleh
  • Christopher E. Engeler
  • Rene P. duCret
  • Robert J. Boudreau
Original Articles

Abstract

To determine whether the scintigraphic evaluation of technetium-99m diisopropyl iminodiacetic acid (DISIDA) uptake and excretion can distinguish among liver transplant patients with biopsy evidence for rejection, cholestasis or neither condition, we reviewed scintigrams and biopsies in 36 patients. There were 76 scintigrams with corresponding biopsies. Uptake and excretion were graded from image data on scales reflecting normal through severely abnormal values. Biopsies were evaluated for findings of cholestasis and rejection. The majority of scintigrams demonstrated normal uptake (60/75, 80%) and delayed excretion (65/76, 85%), which was most marked immediately after transplantation. One-way analysis of variance showed that the mean excretion values significantly differed between patients with normal biopsies and those with cholestasis and/or rejection (P =0.0003). However, mean uptake scores demonstrated no statistically significant difference between these two groups of patients (P =0.1). These findings suggest that 99mTc-DISIDA scintigraphy can differentiate between transplants with and without rejection/cholestasis but not between rejection and cholestasis. If 99mTc-DISIDA excretion is normal, rejection and cholestasis are unlikely.

Key words

Liver transplantation Liver, radionuclide studies Liver biopsy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bauman J, Campbell WL, Demetris AJ et al. (1989) Intrahepatic cholangiographic abnormalities in liver transplants: correlation with biopsy evidence of rejection and other disorders. AIR 152:275–279Google Scholar
  2. Brown RKJ, Memsic LDF, Busuttil RW et al. (1986) Accurate demonstration of hepatic infarction in liver transplant recipients. J Nucl Med 27:1428–1431Google Scholar
  3. Cuervas-Mons V, Canton T, Escandón J et al. (1987) Monitoring of the rejection of intrasplenic hepatocyte allografts and xenografts in the rat using technetium 99m-imidoacetic acid scanning. Transplant Proc XIX:3850–3851Google Scholar
  4. Dalen K, Ascher NL et al. (1988) Imaging vascular complications after hepatic transplantation. AIR 150:1285–1290Google Scholar
  5. Davis PL, Van Thiel DH, Zajko AB et al. (1989) Imaging in hepatic transplantation. Semin Liver Dis 9:90–101Google Scholar
  6. deJonge MWC, Pauwels EKJ, Hennis PJ et al. (1983) Cholescintigraphy with 99mTc-diethyl-IDA for the detection of rejection of auxiliary liver transplants in pigs. Eur J Nucl Med 8:485–488Google Scholar
  7. Esquivel CO, Jaffe R, Gordon RD et al. (1985) Liver rejection and its differentiation from other causes of graft dysfunction. Semin Liver Dis 5:369–374Google Scholar
  8. Hawkins RA, Hall T, Gambhir SS et al. (1988) Radionuclide evaluation of liver transplants. Semin Nucl Med 18:199–212Google Scholar
  9. Klingensmith WC, Spitzer VM, Fritzberg AR et al. (1981) The normal fasting and postprandial Tc-99m-diisopropyl-IDA hepatobiliary study. Radiology 141:771–776Google Scholar
  10. Krishnamurthy S, Krishnamurthy GT (1989) Tc-99m-Iminodiacetic acid organic anions: review of biokinetics and clinical applications in hepatology. Hepatology 9:139–153Google Scholar
  11. Kuni CC, Engeler CM, Nakhleh R et al. (1991) Correlation of Tc-99m-DISIDA hepatobiliary studies with biopsies in liver transplant patients. J Nucl Med 32:1545–1547Google Scholar
  12. Letourneau JG, Day DL, Ascher NL et al. (1987a) Abdominal sonography after hepatic transplantation: results in 36 patients. AIR 149:299–303Google Scholar
  13. Letourneau JG, Day DL, Maile CW et al. (1987b) Liver allograft transplantation. Postoperative CT findings. AJR 148:1099–1103Google Scholar
  14. Loberg MD et al. (1980) Letter. J Nucl Med 21:1111–1112Google Scholar
  15. Loken MK, Ascher NL, Boudreau RJ et al. (1986) Scintigraphic evaluation of liver transplant function. J Nucl Med 27:452–459Google Scholar
  16. Okuda H, Nunes R, Vallabhajosula S et al. (1986) Studies of hepatocellular uptake of the hepatobiliary scintiscanning agent Tc99m-DISIDA. J Hepato 13:251–259Google Scholar
  17. Snover DC (1986) The pathology of acute rejection. Transplant Proc 18:123–127Google Scholar
  18. Snover DC, Sibley RK, Freese DK et al. (1984) Orthotopic liver transplantation: a pathological study of 63 serial liver biopsies from 17 patients with special reference to the diagnostic features and natural history of rejection. Hepatology 4:1212Google Scholar
  19. Snover DC, Freese DK, Sharp HL et al. (1987) Liver allograft rejection. An analysis of the use of biopsy in determining outcome of rejection. Am J Surg Pathol 11:1–10Google Scholar
  20. Starzl TE, Iwatsuki S, Van Thiel DH et al. (1982) Evolution of liver transplantation. Hepatology 2:614–636Google Scholar
  21. White RM, Zajko AB, Demetris AJ et al. (1987) Liver transplant rejection: angiographic findings in 35 patients. AJR 148:1095–1098Google Scholar
  22. William JW, Vera S, Peters TG et al. (1986) Cholestatic jaundice after transplantation. Am J Surg 151:65–69Google Scholar
  23. Zajko AB, Campbell WL, Bron KM et al. (1985) Cholangiography and interventional biliary radiology in adult liver transplantation. AJR 144:127–133Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia M. Engeler
    • 1
  • Christopher C. Kuni
    • 1
  • Raouf Nakhleh
    • 2
  • Christopher E. Engeler
    • 1
  • Rene P. duCret
    • 1
  • Robert J. Boudreau
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyThe University of Minnesota Hospital and ClinicMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Laboratory Medicine and PathologyHenry Ford HospitalDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations