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

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....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEuropean journal of nuclear medicine Vol. 19; no. 10; p. 865
Main Authors Engeler, C M, Kuni, C C, Nakhleh, R, Engeler, C E, duCret, R P, Boudreau, R J
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Germany 01.10.1992
Subjects
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary: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.
ISSN:0340-6997
DOI:10.1007/BF00168162