• AJR Am J Roentgenol · Mar 2010

    Comparative Study

    Contrast material for abdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography with parallel imaging: intraindividual equimolar comparison of a macrocyclic 1.0 M gadolinium chelate and a linear ionic 0.5 M gadolinium chelate.

    • Dariusch Reza Hadizadeh, Marcus Von Falkenhausen, Guido Matthias Kukuk, Katherina Schöneseiffen, Jürgen Gieseke, Hans Heinz Schild, and Winfried Albert Willinek.
    • Department of Radiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud Strasse 25, 53127 Bonn, Germany. dr.hadizadeh@uni-bonn.de
    • AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Mar 1; 194 (3): 821-9.

    ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare a macrocyclic 1.0 M contrast agent with a linear ionic 0.5 M contrast agent at equimolar dosage in regard to image quality and number of vessel segments visualized at abdominal dynamic contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography.Subjects And MethodsIn an intraindividual comparative study, 15 patients (six women, nine men; mean age, 53 +/- 12.1 years; range, 25-72 years) underwent 32 1.5-T whole-body contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiographic examinations performed with parallel imaging technique. At random and in separate sessions, each patient was examined after IV injection of 0.1 mmol/kg body weight 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol and 0.5 M linear ionic gadopentetate dimeglumine. Three-dimensional data sets were acquired in the arterial, portal venous, and venous phases with identical imaging protocols. Quantitative analysis included contrast measurements of vessels compared with adjacent background tissue (Student's t test). Qualitative analysis was performed independently by two radiologists with regard to visualization of arterial and venous vessel segments and overall image quality (Wilcoxon's test).ResultsVisualization of individual vessel segments was rated significantly better after administration of 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol compared with 0.5 M linear ionic gadopentetate dimeglumine (p < 0.001). Overall image quality was superior with 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol, but the difference was not significant. Vessel-to-background contrast after injection of 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol was significantly higher (arterial phase, 0.90, p = 0.02; portal venous phase, 0.78, p = 0.0002; venous phase, 0.74, p = 0.0002) compared with 0.5 M linear ionic gadopentetate dimeglumine (arterial phase, 0.89; portal venous phase, 0.73; venous phase, 0.67).ConclusionAt abdominal contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography, depiction of small abdominal vessels was significantly better and vessel-to-tissue contrast significantly higher with 1.0 M macrocyclic gadobutrol than with an equimolar dose of 0.5 M linear ionic gadopentetate dimeglumine.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.