Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) vs. MRI of the small bowel in the evaluation of Crohn’s disease activity

Purpose The presence of disease activity in Crohn’s disease (CD) is one of the main parameters used to establish whether optimal therapy should be drug therapy or surgery. However, a major problem in monitoring CD is the common mismatch between the patient’s symptoms and imaging objective signs of disease activity. Bowel ultrasonography (US) has emerged as a low-cost, noninvasive technique in the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with CD. Accordingly, the use of contrastenhanced US (CEUS) has made possible an evaluation of the vascular enhancement pattern, similar to the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The aim of our study was to evaluate the role of CEUS in comparison with small-bowel MRI for assessing Crohn’s disease activity. Materials and methods We prospectively enrolled 30 consecutive patients with known CD. Clinical and laboratory data were compared with imaging findings obtained from MRI and CEUS of the small bowel. MRI was performed with a 1.5-T system using phased-array coils and biphasic orally administered contrast agent prior to and after gadolinium chelate administration. We performed US with a 7.5-MHz linear-array probe and a second-generation contrast agent. The parameters analysed in both techniques were the following: lesion length, wall thickness, layered wall appearance, comb sign, fibroadipose proliferation, presence of enlarged lymph nodes and stenosis. We classified parietal enhancement curves into two types in relation to the contrast pattern obtained with the time-intensity curves at MRI and CEUS: (1) quick washin, quick washout, (2) slow washin, plateau with a slow washout. Results Comparison between Crohn’s disease activity index (CDAI) and MRI showed a low correlation, with an rho=0.398; correlation between CDAI-laboratory data and CEUS activity was low, with rho=0.354; correlation between MRI activity and CEUS activity was good, with rho = 0.791; high correlation was found between CEUS and MRI of the small bowel when assessing wallthickness, lymph nodes and comb sign; good correlation was fund when assessing layered wall appearance, disease extension and fibroadipose proliferation. At MRI, timeintensity curves for 12/30 patients were active, compared with for 14/30 patients at CEUS; therefore there was a poor correlation between curve on CEUS and curve on MRI ( r =0.167; p =0.36). Conclusions The use of CEUS can be recommended if there is a discrepancy between MRI and clinical/laboratory parameters. MRI of the small