C-Arm Cone Beam CT for Intraprocedural Image Fusion and 3D Guidance in Portal Vein Embolization (PVE)

• Published in: Cardiovascular and interventional radiology 2018-03, Vol.41 (3), p.424-432
• Main Authors: Lüdemann, Willie M., Böning, Georg, Chapiro, Julius, Jonczyk, Martin, Geisel, Dominik, Schnapauff, Dirk, Wieners, Gero, Schmelzle, Moritz, Chopra, Sascha, Günther, Rolf W., Gebauer, Bernhard, Streitparth, Florian
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: BEAMS; Body mass; Cardiology; Clinical Investigation; Complications; Computed tomography; Computer vision; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; CONES; Embolization; Feasibility studies; GY RANGE; Hyperplasia; IMAGE PROCESSING; Imaging; Intervention; Liver; Liver diseases; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Nuclear Medicine; PATIENTS; Platelets; Portal vein; Radiation; RADIATION DOSES; Radiation effects; Radiology; RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; Ultrasound; VASCULAR DISEASES; VEINS
• ISSN: 0174-1551; 1432-086X
• DOI: 10.1007/s00270-017-1782-2

Purpose Portal vein embolization (PVE) is applied in patients with extended oncologic liver disease to induce hyperplasia of the future liver remnant and make resection feasible. Ultrasound (US) guidance is the gold standard for percutaneous portal vein access. This study evaluated feasibility and safety of C-arm cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for needle guidance. Materials and Methods In 10 patients, puncture was performed under 3D needle guidance in a CBCT data set. Contrast-enhanced (CE) CBCT was generated ( n  = 7), or native CBCT was registered to pre-examination CE-CT via image fusion ( n  = 3). Technical success, number of punctures, puncture time (time between CBCT acquisition and successful portal vein access), dose parameters and safety were evaluated. For comparison, 10 patients with PVE under US guidance were analyzed retrospectively. Study and control group were matched for age, BMI, INR, platelets, portal vein anatomy. Results All interventions were technically successful without intervention-related complications. In the study group, the mean number of puncture attempts was 3.1 ± 2.5. Mean puncture time was 12 min (±10). Mean total dose area product (DAP) was 288 Gy cm 2 (±154). The mean relative share of CBCT-related radiation exposure was 6% (±3). Intervention times and DAP were slightly higher compared to the control group without reaching significance. Conclusion CBCT-guided PVE is feasible and safe. The relative dose of CBCT is low compared to the overall dose of the intervention. This technique may be a promising approach for difficult anatomic situations that limit the use of US for needle guidance.