4.2 Article

CONTRAST-ENHANCED ULTRASONOGRAPHY OF THE PANCREAS IN HEALTHY DOGS AND IN DOGS WITH ACUTE PANCREATITIS

期刊

VETERINARY RADIOLOGY & ULTRASOUND
卷 57, 期 1, 页码 58-64

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/vru.12285

关键词

canine; contrast-enhanced ultrasound; pancreas; pancreatitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pancreatitis is the most frequent disease affecting the exocrine pancreas in dogs and reliable diagnostic techniques for predicting fatal complications are lacking. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) improves detection of tissue perfusion as well as organ lesion vascular pattern. Objectives of this prospective case control study were to compare perfusion characteristics and enhancement patterns of the pancreas in healthy dogs and dogs with pancreatitis using CEUS. Ten healthy dogs and eight dogs with pancreatitis were selected based on physical examination, abdominal ultrasound, and blood analysis findings. A CEUS study of the pancreas was performed for each dog and two observers who were aware of clinical status used advanced ultrasound quantification software to analyze time-intensity curves. Perfusion patterns were compared between healthy and affected dogs. In dogs with acute pancreatitis, mean pixel and peak intensity of the pancreatic parenchyma was significantly higher than that of normal dogs (P = 0.05) in between 6 and 60 s (P = <0.0001-0.046). This corresponds to a 311% increase in mean pixel intensity in dogs with acute pancreatitis compared to healthy dogs. Wash-in rates were greater and had a consistently steeper slope to peak in dogs with pancreatitis as opposed to healthy dogs. All dogs with pancreatitis showed a decrease in pixel intensity 10-15 days after the initial examination (P = 0.011) and their times to peak values were prolonged compared to the initial exam. Findings from the current study supported the use of CEUS for diagnosing pancreatitis, pancreatic necrosis, and disease monitoring following therapy in dogs. (C) 2015 American College of Veterinary Radiology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据