Chouhan, MD;
Ramasawmy, R;
Bainbridge, A;
Campbell-Washburn, A;
Halligan, S;
Davies, N;
Walker-Samuel, S;
... Taylor, SA; + view all
(2020)
Liver perfusion MRI in a rodent model of cirrhosis: Agreement with bulk‐flow phase‐contrast MRI and noninvasive evaluation of inflammation in chronic liver disease using flow‐sensitive alternating inversion recovery arterial spin labelling and tissue T1.
NMR in Biomedicine
, Article e4423. 10.1002/nbm.4423.
(In press).
Preview |
Text
nbm.4423.pdf - Published Version Download (6MB) | Preview |
Abstract
Noninvasive measurements of liver perfusion and fibrosis in cirrhotic small animals can help develop treatments for haemodynamic complications of liver disease. Here, we measure liver perfusion in cirrhotic rodents using flow‐sensitive alternating inversion recovery arterial spin labelling (FAIR ASL), evaluating agreement with previously validated caval subtraction phase‐contrast magnetic resonance imaging (PCMRI) total liver blood flow (TLBF). Baseline differences in cirrhotic rodents and the haemodynamic effects of acute inflammation were investigated using FAIR ASL and tissue T1. Sprague–Dawley rats (nine bile duct ligated [BDL] and ten sham surgery controls) underwent baseline hepatic FAIR ASL with T1 measurement and caval subtraction PCMRI (with two‐dimensional infra‐/supra‐hepatic inferior vena caval studies), induction of inflammation with intravenous lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and repeat liver FAIR ASL with T1 measurement after ~90 minutes. The mean difference between FAIR ASL hepatic perfusion and caval subtraction PCMRI TLBF was −51 ± 30 ml/min/100 g (Bland–Altman 95% limits‐of‐agreement ±258 ml/min/100 g). The FAIR ASL coefficient of variation was smaller than for caval subtraction PCMRI (29.3% vs 50.1%; P = .03). At baseline, FAIR ASL liver perfusion was lower in BDL rats (199 ± 32 ml/min/100 g vs sham 316 ± 24 ml/min/100 g; P = .01) but liver T1 was higher (BDL 1533 ± 50 vs sham 1256 ± 18 ms; P = .0004). Post‐LPS FAIR ASL liver perfusion response differences were observed between sham/BDL rats (P = .02), approaching significance in sham (+78 ± 33 ml/min/100 g; P = .06) but not BDL rats (−49 ± 40 ml/min/100 g; P = .47). Post‐LPS differences in liver tissue T1 were nonsignificant (P = .35). FAIR ASL hepatic perfusion and caval subtraction PCMRI TLBF agreement was modest, with significant baseline FAIR ASL liver perfusion and tissue T1 differences in rodents with advanced cirrhosis compared with controls. Following inflammatory stress, differences in hepatic perfusion response were detected between cirrhotic/control animals, but liver T1 was unaffected. Findings underline the potential of FAIR ASL in the assessment of vasoactive treatments for patients with chronic liver disease and inflammation.
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
