Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS This study aimed to compare the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with computed tomography (CT) in assessing acute pancreatitis (AP) and to explore the correlation between MRI findings and clinical outcome. METHODS Patients with AP were investigated by contrast-enhanced CT and MRI on admission and 7 and 30 days thereafter. MRI was performed with intravenous secretin and contrast medium. Balthazar's grading system was used to measure CT and MRI severity indices (CTSI and MRSI, respectively). RESULTS Thirty-nine patients (median age, 47 years; range, 15-86) were studied. AP was of biliary etiology in 19 patients (49%). On admission, AP was assessed clinically as severe in 7 patients (18%). A strong correlation was demonstrated between CTSI and MRSI on admission and 7 days later. MRSI on admission correlated with the following: the Ranson score, C-reactive protein levels 48 hours after admission, duration of hospitalization, and clinical outcome regarding morbidity, including local and systemic complications. Considering the Ranson score as the gold standard, MRI detected severe AP with 83% (58-96, 95% CI) sensitivity, 91% (68-98) specificity vs. 78% (52-93) and 86% (63-96) for CT. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography after i.v. secretin injection showed pancreatic duct leakage in 3 patients (8%). CONCLUSIONS MRI is a reliable method of staging AP severity, has predictive value for the prognosis of the disease, and has fewer contraindications than CT. It can also detect pancreatic duct disruption, which may occur early in the course of AP.

[1]  M. Schnall,et al.  Magnetic resonance cholangiography. , 1995, Gastroenterology clinics of North America.

[2]  J. Neoptolemos,et al.  Assessment of main pancreatic duct integrity by endoscopic retrograde pancreatography in patients with acute pancreatitis , 1993, The British journal of surgery.

[3]  E. Rummeny,et al.  Dynamic MR pancreatography after secretin administration: image quality and diagnostic accuracy. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  J. Werner,et al.  The relative safety of MRI contrast agent in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. , 1998, Annals of surgery.

[5]  R. Semelka,et al.  Pancreatic disease: prospective comparison of CT, ERCP, and 1.5-T MR imaging with dynamic gadolinium enhancement and fat suppression. , 1991, Radiology.

[6]  R. Carmona-Sánchez,et al.  Potential harmful effect of iodinated intravenous contrast medium on the clinical course of mild acute pancreatitis. , 2000, Archives of surgery.

[7]  J. Ridgway,et al.  Comparison of MR and CT scanning in severe acute pancreatitis: initial experiences. , 1993, Clinical radiology.

[8]  Bradley El rd,et al.  A clinically based classification system for acute pancreatitis. , 1993 .

[9]  P. Robinson,et al.  T2-weighted and dynamic enhanced MRI in acute pancreatitis: comparison with contrast enhanced CT. , 1997, Clinical radiology.

[10]  R. Johannes,et al.  Pancreatic stent placement for duct disruption. , 2002, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[11]  D. Malka,et al.  Comment faire le diagnostic positif et étiologique de pancréatite aiguë , 2001 .

[12]  J. Neoptolemos,et al.  CONTROLLED TRIAL OF URGENT ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY AND ENDOSCOPIC SPHINCTEROTOMY VERSUS CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT FOR ACUTE PANCREATITIS DUE TO GALLSTONES , 1988, The Lancet.

[13]  D. Rattner,et al.  Intravenous contrast medium impairs oxygenation of the pancreas in acute necrotizing pancreatitis in the rat. , 1994, Archives of surgery.

[14]  R. Lecesne,et al.  Acute pancreatitis: interobserver agreement and correlation of CT and MR cholangiopancreatography with outcome. , 1999, Radiology.

[15]  E L Bradley,et al.  A clinically based classification system for acute pancreatitis. Summary of the International Symposium on Acute Pancreatitis, Atlanta, Ga, September 11 through 13, 1992. , 1993, Archives of surgery.

[16]  P. Malfertheiner,et al.  Influence of Contrast-enhanced Computed Tomography on Course and Outcome in Patients with Acute Pancreatitis , 2002, Pancreas.

[17]  D. Rattner,et al.  Intravenous contrast medium accentuates the severity of acute necrotizing pancreatitis in the rat. , 1994, Gastroenterology.

[18]  V. Valtonen,et al.  Early antibiotic treatment in acute necrotising pancreatitis , 1995, The Lancet.

[19]  L. Traverso,et al.  A pancreatic ductal leak should be sought to direct treatment in patients with acute pancreatitis. , 2001, American journal of surgery.

[20]  Denis Sautereau,et al.  Value of magnetic resonance cholangiography in the preoperative diagnosis of common bile duct stones , 2001, American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[21]  T. Metens,et al.  Pancreatic duct: morphologic and functional evaluation with dynamic MR pancreatography after secretin stimulation. , 1997, Radiology.

[22]  J. Soto,et al.  Magnetic resonance cholangiography: comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. , 1996, Gastroenterology.

[23]  G. Krestin,et al.  Renal tolerance of gadolinium-DTPA/dimeglumine in patients with chronic renal failure. , 1992, Investigative radiology.

[24]  G. Manes,et al.  The incidence of main pancreatic duct disruption in severe biliary pancreatitis. , 1998, American journal of surgery.

[25]  H. Buhr,et al.  Intravenous Contrast Medium Aggravates the Impairment of Pancreatic Microcirculation in Necrotizing Pancreatitis in the Rat , 1995, Annals of surgery.

[26]  Ranson Jh,et al.  Etiological and prognostic factors in human acute pancreatitis: a review. , 1982 .

[27]  D L Robinson,et al.  Acute pancreatitis: value of CT in establishing prognosis. , 1990, Radiology.

[28]  J. Soto,et al.  Traumatic disruption of the pancreatic duct: diagnosis with MR pancreatography. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.