2004
DOI: 10.1016/s0720-048x(03)00084-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Does intravenous glucagon improve common bile duct visualisation during magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography? Results in 42 patients

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…23 We also assessed the utility of using IP glucagon (Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA) at a dose of 0.15 mg/kg to help decrease gut motion artifact. 24 Both gadoxetate disodium and glucagon were injected in the left lower quadrant of the abdomen immediately before scanning.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…23 We also assessed the utility of using IP glucagon (Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA) at a dose of 0.15 mg/kg to help decrease gut motion artifact. 24 Both gadoxetate disodium and glucagon were injected in the left lower quadrant of the abdomen immediately before scanning.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The diagnostic accuracy of MRCP has been reported to be comparable to that of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the evaluation of disorders and identification of anatomic variants of biliary ductal systems 1–5. Drugs can alter the physiology of the biliary system and improve the quality of MRCP images in patients with biliary diseases 6–11. Morphine and other opiates contract the sphincter of Oddi.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Morphine and other opiates contract the sphincter of Oddi. Glucagon increases bile flow but relaxes the sphincter of Oddi 6…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to Dalal et al [35], the intravenous injection of the sphincter-relaxing agent glucagon during MRCP is able to improve the visualisation of the CBD and ampulla of Vater. However, these authors did not use any control group for their evaluation, in contrast to van Hoe et al…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%