These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Diagnostic accuracy of non-contrast magnetic resonance enterography in detecting active bowel inflammation in pediatric patients with diagnosed or suspected inflammatory bowel disease to determine necessity of gadolinium-based contrast agents.
    Author: Kim SJ, Ratchford TL, Buchanan PM, Patel DR, Tao TY, Teckman JH, Brown JJ, Farmakis SG.
    Journal: Pediatr Radiol; 2019 May; 49(6):759-769. PubMed ID: 30899973.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of gadolinium deposition given the potential need for multiple contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) exams over their lifetime. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether gadolinium-based contrast agents are necessary in assessing active bowel inflammation on MRE in pediatric patients with known or suspected IBD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 77 patients (7-18 years; 68.8% male) with known (n=58) or suspected (n=19) IBD and endoscopy with biopsy performed within 30 days of MRE without and with contrast evaluated bowel and non-bowel findings. During three visual analysis sessions, two radiologists reviewed pre-, post-, and pre-/post-contrast MRE images. A third radiologist independently reviewed 27 studies to assess inter-reader reliability. We used Cohen kappa (κ), Fleiss kappa, (κF), McNemar test, and sensitivity and specificity to compare MRE readings to combined endoscopic/histopathological findings (the reference standard). RESULTS: The pre- and pre-/post-contrast-enhanced MRE vs. combined endoscopic/histopathological results had moderate agreement (85.7%; κ 0.713, P<0.001; P-value 0.549). Compared to combined endoscopy/histopathology, pre- vs. pre-/post-contrast sensitivity (67%, confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.79 vs. 67%, CI 0.53-0.79) and specificity (80%, CI 0.59-0.92 vs. 68%, CI 0.46-0.84) varied little (κ 0.42, P<0.001 and κ 0.32, P=0.003, respectively). The three readers had moderate agreement (85.2%; κ 0.695, P=0.001; P-value 0.625). More penetrating complications were identified following contrast administration (P-value 0.04). CONCLUSION: Use of a contrast agent does not improve the detection of active inflammation in the terminal ileum and colon compared to non-contrast MRE, although use of a contrast agent does aid in the detection of penetrating disease.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]