Quantitative analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and superb microvascular imaging for the evaluation of disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August 14, 2024
Quantitative analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and superb microvascular imaging for the evaluation of disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease
To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional US (ultrasound), SMI (superb microvascular imaging), and CEUS (contrast-enhanced ultrasound) features for the assessment of the activity of inflammatory bowel disease.
METHODS:
Conventional US, CEUS and SMI features of 76 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were categorized into two groups: active group (n = 57) and inactive group (n = 19), with endoscopic results as reference standard. Results in the active group and inactive group were compared using an independent t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis. Cut-off values were determined using ROC analysis, and sensitivity and specificity were calculated. US quantitative and TIC-based quantitative parameters were analyzed, and each patient was scored based on the parameters that are statistically significant and immediately available in the clinic to evaluate the diagnostic ability of conventional US, SMI, and CEUS features for active IBD patients.
RESULTS:
Qualitative parameters such as CEUS enhancement pattern I/II, LimbergIII/IV, and lost bowel stratification were reliable indicators of active patients. Quantitative parameters such as bowel thickness and VI of mSMI were reliable indicators of active patients. Patients scored based on these statistically significant parameters with a score ≥3, were highly suspected to be active patients. For TIC-based quantitative parameters, PE, WiAUC, WoAUC, WiWoAUC, WiR, WiPI, and WoR were statistically significant in the differentiation of active IBD from inactive IBD.
CONCLUSIONS:
Conventional US, SMI, and CEUS features may help in the differentiation of active IBD from inactive IBD and have potential application value in the choice of treatment options.
VilelaEG, TorresHO, MartinsFP, et al.
Evaluation of inflammatory activity in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis [J]. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18(9):872–81.
2.
D’incàR, CaccaroR. Measuring disease activity in Crohn’s disease: What is currently available to theclinician [J]. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2014;7:151–61.
3.
DambhaF, TannerJ, CarrollN. Diagnostic imaging in Crohn’s disease: What is the new gold standard? [J]. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;28(3):421–36.
4.
FiorinoG, BonifacioC, MalesciA, et al.
MRI in Crohn’s disease–current and future clinical applications [J]. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9(1):23–31.
5.
MasselliG, GualdiGMR imaging of the small bowel [J]. Radiology. 2012;264(2):333–48.
6.
PanesJ, BouhnikY, ReinischW, et al.
Imaging techniques for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease: Joint ECCO and ESGAR evidence-based consensus guidelines [J]. J Crohns Colitis. 2013;7(7):556–85.
7.
SasakiT, KunisakiR, KinoshitaH, et al.
Use of color Doppler ultrasonography for evaluating vascularity of small intestinal lesions in Crohn’s disease: Correlation with endoscopic and surgical macroscopic findings [J]. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2014;49(3):295–301.
8.
WakefieldAJ, SawyerrAM, DhillonAP, et al.
Pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease: Multifocal gastrointestinal infarction [J]. Lancet. 1989;2(8671):1057–62.
9.
PaulsS, GabelmannA, SchmidtSA, et al.
Evaluating bowel wall vascularity in Crohn’s disease: A comparison of dynamic MRI and wideband harmonic imaging contrast-enhanced low MI ultrasound [J]. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(11):2410–7.
10.
RipollésT, MartínezMJ, ParedesJM, et al.
Crohn disease: Correlation of findings at contrast-enhanced US with severity at endoscopy [J]. Radiology. 2009;253(1):241–8.
11.
LiuQ, WangZ. Diagnostic value of real-time shear wave elastography in children with chronic kidney disease [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2021;77(3):287–93.
12.
LimbergB. Diagnosis of chronic inflammatory bowel disease by ultrasonography [J]. Z Gastroenterol. 1999;37(6):495–508.
13.
SerraC, MenozziG, LabateAM, et al.
Ultrasound assessment of vascularization of the thickened terminal ileum wall in Crohn’s disease patients using a low-mechanical index real-time scanning technique with a second generation ultrasound contrast agent [J]. Eur J Radiol. 2007;62(1):114–21.
14.
OhnoY, FujimotoT, ShibataY. A new era in diagnostic ultrasound, superb microvascular imaging: Preliminary results in pediatric hepato-gastrointestinal disorders [J]. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2017;27(1):20–5.
15.
HuangX, NieF, ZhuJ, et al.
Application value of shear-wave elastography combined with monochrome superb microvascular imaging in renal allograft chronic rejection [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2022;82(4)303–11.
16.
PiscagliaF, NolsøeC, DietrichCF, et al.
The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical practice of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): Update 2011 on non-hepatic applications [J]. Ultraschall Med. 2012;33(1):33–59.
17.
KratzerW, Von TirpitzC, MasonR, et al.
Contrast-enhanced power Doppler sonography of the intestinal wall in the differentiation of hypervascularized and hypovascularized intestinal obstructions in patients with Crohn’s disease [J]. J Ultrasound Med. 2002;21(2):149–57; quiz 58–9.
18.
SchlottmannK, KratzerW, SchölmerichJ. Doppler ultrasound and intravenous contrast agents in gastrointestinal tract disorders: Current role and future implications [J]. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;17(3):263–75.
19.
HenrichW, MeckiesJ, FriedmannW. Demonstration of a recto-vaginal fistula with the ultrasound contrast medium Echovist [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;15(2):148–9.
20.
SidhuPS, CantisaniV, DietrichCF, et al.
The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations for the clinical practice of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in non-hepatic applications: Update 2017 (Long Version) [J]. Ultraschall Med. 2018;39(2):e2–e44.
21.
GirlichC, SchachererD, LambyP, et al. Innovations in contrast enhanced high resolution ultrasound improve sonographic imaging of the intestine [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2010;45(2-4):207–15.
22.
TewsHC, KandulskiA, SchmidS, et al.
Multimodal ultrasound imaging with conventional B-mode, elastography, and parametric analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): A novel approach to assess small bowel manifestation in severe COVID-19 disease [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2022;82(4)341–60.
23.
SchreyerAG, LandfriedK, JungEM, et al.
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for differential diagnosis of suspected GvHD in patients after allogeneic transplantation [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2011;49(1-4):129–36.
24.
BadeaR, SocaciuM, CiobanuL, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) for the evaluation of the inflammation of the digestive tract wall [J]. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis2010;19(4):439–44.
25.
SaevikF, NylundK, HauskenT, et al.
Bowel perfusion measured with dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound predicts treatment outcome in patients with Crohn’s disease [J]. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2014;20(11):2029–37.
26.
RomaniniL, PassamontiM, NavarriaM, et al.
Quantitative analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography of the bowel wall can predict disease activity in inflammatory bowel disease [J]. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(8):1317–23.
27.
NylundK, JirikR, MezlM, et al.
Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasound comparison between inflammatory and fibrotic lesions in patients with Crohn’s disease [J]. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013;39(7):1197–206.
28.
MaC, HuangPL, KangN, et al.
The clinical value of multimodal ultrasound for the evaluation of disease activity and complications in inflammatory bowel disease [J]. Ann Palliat Med. 2020;9(6):4146–55.
29.
Di MizioR, MaconiG, RomanoS, et al. Small bowel Crohn disease: Sonographic features [J]. Abdom Imaging. 2004;29(1):23–35.
30.
ZhangF, MiaoLY, GeHY, et al.
Usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differentiating inflammatory bowel disease from colon cancer [J]. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018;44(1):124–33.
31.
MaconiG, CarsanaL, FocianiP, et al. Small bowel stenosis in Crohn’s disease: Clinical, biochemical and ultrasonographic evaluation of histological features [J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;18(7)749–56.
32.
BotsS, NylundK, LöwenbergM, et al.
Ultrasound for assessing disease activity in IBD patients: A systematic review of activity scores [J]. J Crohns Colitis. 2018;12(8):920–9.
33.
IshikawaD, AndoT, WatanabeO, et al. Images of colonic real-time tissue sonoelastography correlate with those of colonoscopy and may predict response to therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis [J]. BMC Gastroenterol. 2011;11:29.
34.
ChenYJ, MaoR, LiXH, et al.
Real-time shear wave ultrasound elastography differentiates fibrotic from inflammatory strictures in patients with Crohn’s disease [J]. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2018;24(10):2183–90.
35.
SconfienzaLM, CavallaroF, ColombiV, et al.
In-vivo Axial-strain sonoelastography helps distinguish acutely-inflamed from fibrotic terminal ileum strictures in patients with Crohn’s disease: Preliminary results [J]. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016;42(4):855–63.
36.
SerafinZ, BiałeckiM, BiałeckaA, et al.
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for detection of Crohn’s diseaseactivity: Systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(3):354–62.
37.
MaX, LiY, JiaH, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of patients suspected of having active Crohn’s disease: Meta-analysis [J]. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015;41(3)659–68.
38.
AlloccaM, KucharzikT, RubinDT. Intestinal ultrasound in the assessment and management of inflammatory Bowel disease: Is it ready for standard practice? [J]. Gastroenterology. 2023;164(6):851–5.
39.
SchreyerAG, MenzelC, FriedrichC, et al.
Comparison of high-resolution ultrasound and MR-enterography in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [J]. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17(8):1018–25.
40.
TewsHC, KandulskiA, SchmidS, et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) a novel tool to detect intestinal epithelial barrier dysfunction in severe COVID-19 disease [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2022;81(2):177–90.
